Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 56

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 50 ← Archive 54 Archive 55 Archive 56 Archive 57 Archive 58 → Archive 60

Prediction to expectation

The meaning of prediction given in dictionary as "1. The act of predicting. 2. Something foretold or predicted; a prophecy.". The meaning of expectation given in dictionary as "1.The act of expecting. 2.Eager anticipation."

Based on this fact I believe the term "expectation" is more accurate than "prediction". Particularly because JW's had not predicted or made any prophecy about 1914,1925 or 1975. But they only raised expectations or anticipation or hope. Prediction is related to the act of making prophecy. But expectation is the correct word in our context. Only critics had accused that JW claims as a prophet or those who predicts. The publications Ray franz mentioned about JW's(as a prophet like Noah) is true only in the sense that JW's are the messengers of coming danger(like Noah) but not as a prophet. But its a known fact that all publications of JW's dispute the claim that it as a prophet. I think its better to replace the heading failed predictions with failed expectations .Prediction can be used when dealing with critics but expectation is correct when saying counter points by JW's-  Logical Thinker  05:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not built around the personal opinions of its editors, but of reliable published sources. Those we are quoting refer almost exclusively to failed prophecies. That term has recently been turned into "failed predictions"; now you, without citing any sources, have decided it is "more accurate" to use the word "expectations". I'll take it back to predictions, even though the sources quoted all refer to other "P" word. BlackCab (talk) 08:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I went through the article "Why so many false alarms?", it uses the terms suggestion,expectation and prediction. But Witnesses use the term prediction in articles not in the sense as a prophecy. You may be right then. --  Logical Thinker  08:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
They do use the word predictions and expectations, but they have also responded explicitly to the criticism (the subject at hand) that they are false prophets and have issued false predictions. If they acknowledge it, so should Wikipedia. BlackCab (talk) 08:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Why Are Former JW's Viewed As Unbiased Editors?

It is really hard to ignore that plain and simple fact that several editors, who I will not name directly but we know who they are, state plainly in their bios that they are former Witnesses. Let's not feign ignorance on who these editors are or their views. They freely control this article and are viewed as unbiased because they quote 3-rd party articles, according to WIKI policy. However, all of their quotes support their anti-JW views, as clearly expressed in their bios. I have read through most of these discussion forums and found that they also seem to control the discussion in these forums. Look for yourselves. If anyone dares to make a pro-JW statement, then they are views as "biased-JW's." Well then the real question is raised; 'Who is not biased in relation to JWs? Not many, frankly. Therefore, one should really question if an accurate article in WIKI can even be maintained. That's why why view this article with great skepticism. Neutral bias on this article is quite simply impossible.

Now it's time for the anti-Witnesses to flambé this statement. Insert your anti-Witness rant here... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.14.27 (talk) 04:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

New Talk Page sections go at the bottom of the page. Inappropiate link in section title removed.
Former JW editors can be regarded as unbiased just as much as can JW editors. You have demonstrated your own bias quite well. Focus on content, not editors.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I am a former Witness. When I began editing JW articles they were skewed strongly towards the Witnesses. They contained much opinion and read like promotional brochures. The Witnesses are, as most studies acknowledge, a religion that attracts much criticism from certain quarters and I opted to round out the JW articles by adding material to cover that. People, after all, are coming to these articles for information that might help them make an important decision in their life and they should therefore be presented with a full array of facts.
In every JW article -- with the obvious exception of Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses -- the critical information is a minor part, and is always based on published reliable sources. The inclusion of critical material is something that clearly upsets some Witnesses, who want to see their religion portrayed in the best possible light. Despite their frequent accusations of bias, I try to ensure that all material, whether showing the good or bad side of the religion, is accurate and properly sourced, rather than simply private opinion. Much of the material trying to counter the few negative points is poorly sourced or simply opinion. Wikipedia is a collaborate effort and one person cannot control content or discussion. What remains on the page should reflect Wikipedia policies on verifiable accuracy. I believe most of it does. BlackCab (talk) 12:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I was not at all shocked by the criticism given here. All those criticism mentioned here have correct counter arguments and many presented in JW publications. In future I would add such sourced counter arguments wherever possible in the criticism section. But it seems former JW's here are not willing to add such counter arguments. Another major problem is the use publications from low graded critics who highlight some criticism without actually analyzing the fact--  Logical Thinker  13:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Which "low graded critics" do you have in mind? BlackCab (talk) 21:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
In my view some of penton's critics can be regarded as so. But I am not going to remove any criticism, but would try to give sourced counter statements for each in future.--  Logical Thinker  01:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
This is a case where it is going to happen on both sides. You will have a editor that will be staunchly pro and editors that are staunchly anti. The key is to being able to find a balance. Articles like this naturally generate a ton of partisans. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Penton's book was published by a respected publishing house, has been cited by other authors and appears to have been given a strongly positive reception. See [http://www.amazon.com/Apocalypse-Delayed-Story-Jehovahs-Witnesses/dp/0802079733/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1285208397&sr=1-1] at Amazon. I'm not sure on what basis you decide that Penton, a professor of religious history, is a low-grade critic. Presumably you've read the book. It struck me as carefully researched. BlackCab (talk) 02:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Images

See Wikipedia:Images#Image choice and placement. Images should be directly related to the topic discussed as per wiki policy. The image on blood is redundant in the article. Blood is an important issue, that's why it had a been explained enough with special sub heading called Rejection of blood transfusions. But in addition to it, adding an image of a blood packet(cannot be related directly) and quoting that "JW's reject blood" is just like following the model of low graded news papers and is not an encyclopedic style.

About title image of watchtower building, I don't understand how it is related to the title Jehovah's witnesses. A new reader should understand what is watchtower first to grasp the image. A kingdom Hall image can better serve as title image because it can be easily grasped (at least as a church) and kingdom halls are more popular(more than 105,000 world wide). What will the editors do if the watchtower shifted its headquarters from Brooklyn? (already they are in the move and sold most buildings there). Hence I suggest to shift the image of Watchtower building to the organization structure section(it is directly related with organizational structure) and place any kingdom Hall image as title image.

In the organizational structure the image of evangelizing is given. For time being I changed it with kingdom hall because it is at least related with the matter discussed there. Moved the evangelizing image under evangelizing section. Kingdom Hall was before misplaced under ethics and morality. In addition the [[File:Reunião em Salão do Reino.jpg]] is directly related and can beautifully illustrate the matter explained in worship sub heading (No idols, meetings, study etc). Hence I added it. See the model of same article in ml wikipedia. --  Logical Thinker  14:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I oppose the replacement of the WT HQ building image at the top of the page with a generic Kingdom Hall image. All Jehovah's Witnesses doctrines and practices are established by the Brooklyn headquarters and all publications emanate from there. It is its seat of power. Just as Roman Catholicism can be symbolised by an image of the Vatican and Islam by Mecca, the JW religion can be illustrated with an image of its grand headquarters, a place most Witnesses would recognize and be proud of. An image of a Kingdom Hall would symbolize nothing. The Scientology article contains that religion's logo; I wouldn't be averse to using a WT logo if one was available, but it would need further discussion from other editors. BlackCab (talk) 21:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
There is no doubt that former JW's and current JW's would recognize the WT HQ for what it is, as BlackCab says, and thats as the JW's seat of power. However, for non-JW's who have no knowledge of the religion, it doesn't immediately make itself known in the way that the Vatican or even Mecca does for non-Catholics and non-Muslims. I would not recommend a generic Kingdom Hall for the main image, but the WT HQ may be a bit too unknown. I would endorse a WT logo as a compromise between the two. I would not recommend removing the blood picture, but that is just my opinion, as LogicalThinker is correct that is doesn't have any immediate, direct correlation with the article. Vyselink (talk) 00:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
In the perspective of the critics and opposers, watchtower society needed to be highlighted more than deserved to describe JW's. But WT society is enough explained in the introduction. However in the perspective of a neutral editor, Watchtower society is the legal entity and organizational HQ, but in general when describing JW's the WT HQ never find importance. Its a clear tangent to regard WT HQ as the symbol of JW, but a kingdom Hall is not a tangent because it can used to describe JW's more directly by quoting a text like "A Kingdom Hall(Worship place or church) of JW's". I suggest BlackCab to think more neutrally and give a better look to article. An encyclopedia is to present ideas in a more understandable way. His comparison with the Vatican of catholic church is not compatible with our case, because Vatican is well known for its Pope, historical & traditional importance of catholic church for centuries. But JW's does not give any importance to brooklyn HQ. They started at Pittsburgh and are always ready to move anywhere. Its clearly stated at the beginning JW's are directed by a Governing body, hence its doesn't matter where they live. Further the Organizational structure section seriously lacks the HQ image. Also the title image of WT HQ is not aesthetically pleasing, a good KH image can please reader and make the reader to continue. A kingdom hall is also related to the central teaching of JW's, the God's kingdom. The Symbol used by watchtower society would fit in Watchtower Society main article. Because of all these factors I recommend a KH as a title image. In ml wiki a similar debate occurred and 3rd party editors finally suggested a KH. I also welcome more possible 3rd party suggestions in this case. If their point is to use WT symbol(viewed as an idol as per recent JW's articles and prohibited in using it at Kingdom Halls), I would then suggest better not to use any title image then --  Logical Thinker  01:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
I found a topic recently occurred in Our Kingdom Ministry(2009) as shown below.
--  Logical Thinker  04:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
It's not clear what you're saying here. The instruction in the OKM was from the WTS to congregations and individuals to avoid using the logo because they do not represent the WTS. For encylcopedic use, see WP:LOGO, which allows the use of trademarked logos within certain gudielines. The logo could not be used on Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses, by my reading. BlackCab (talk) 04:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
My point is clear. The watchtower logo or trademark is used as a legal symbol for Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania and other corporations used by JW's. It can be used as a logo on the article Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania and Corporations of Jehovah's Witnesses. But it cannot be used as a title image or religious Symbol of the article Jehovah's Witnesses. I also explained with reasons why a Kingdom Hall is more appealing and reasonable as the title image than using the Watchtower building.--  Logical Thinker  05:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
If (as is the opinion of User:Logicalthinker33) the Watchtower headquarters should not be used to represent the JW religion, then some random Kingdom Hall—analogous to using some random church for the Catholic Church article—should be used even less so, as it would only falsely imply that the specific Kingdom Hall were somehow especially significant. There seems no good reason why an image of the religion's headquarters should not be used. Subjective opinions about a particular building being visually appealing isn't really the benchmark.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
There has been a lengthy debate over this issue. Opposition on HQ image as title is not only my opinion, a 3rd party had also endorsed it. It is obvious HQ image, KH and watchtower Symbol cannot be considered for Title Image. The only solution is the removal of the title image. I have shifted the HQ to the organizational Structure. It was better if the KH image was used as the title image with a caption "A Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses".-  Logical Thinker  08:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
One other editor suggested that HQ might be a bit too unknown, but did not indicate opposition to its use. A HQ building is certainly less unknown than some random Kingdom Hall, and certainly more helpful than no image at all. It looks pretty bad with no image, so I am restoring HQ.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
I have changed the caption so it is both accurate and directly relevant to the article, eliminating any need for "a new reader should understand what is watchtower first to grasp the image."--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

A Watchtower logo is available in Wikimedia Commons, named File:P watchtower.svg, although the few WTS books I have that contain a logo have something that also includes an open Bible in a circle. The little icon that appears at the official WTS website uses just the basic one as found in Commons. BlackCab (talk) 09:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Using the logo will simply trigger some users to claim the corporation is distinct from the religion, which is true in a legalistic but not practical sense. In any case, the office in Brooklyn is the headquarters of the corporation and of the religion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
I am almost ok with the caption change of title Image and I understand many other issues in removing it. But why the Kingdom Hall image has been removed. In the organization section its possible to incorporate it by giving a relevant caption related to the matter discussed in it(2nd para). It deals with congregational organization. --  Logical Thinker  10:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
The Kingdom Hall picture is not directly relevant to the Organization section. It is directly relevant to the Worship section, but there is already a suitable picture there, and there is insufficient material in that section to warrant both pictures.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
I have also removed the lapel badge image for the same reason for which I removed blood image. It is too redundant, to give more importance to 1975 issue than it deserved. Already it is discussed enough in the introduction, History and criticism section. The section is on history,1942–present: Knorr, Franz, Henschel and Adams not on Failed predictions in 1975. If used in main article could be considered as a POV. It could find place in criticism main article--  Logical Thinker  13:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Every history of the Witnesses deals extensively with the failed expectations for 1975. It is a very notable part of their history and is not a criticism per se. Its inclusion does not express a point of view; it illustrates the emphasis placed on their very strong beliefs that God's kingdom would arrive in the mid-1970s. BlackCab (talk) 20:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
I understand that card removal can hurt you. But be cool and think well. The image is unnecessary in the main article, because
  • The matter on 1975 is already well explained more than deserved in the beginning,history and criticism.
  • The image is giving more importance to a particular subsection inside another subsection.
  • If 1975 was a very important turning point in History, why did JW's increase from 2 million in 1975 to 7.3 million in 2010?
  • The image is too redundant and not directly related to 1975 issue(It not states 1975 world would end ).
  • 1914 is more important in JW's history, So if you are right I would be forced to add a image of 1914 world war.
  • Every history of JW's also deals with persecution, So if that is the case I would be forced to add images of purple triangles.
  • Also notable images of Kingdom Halls, Convention halls, blood, NW bible, Watchtower, Awake should be included in the main article.

But I don't want to do such things because I know it makes the article to loss its quality. The image of lapel card can be used in criticism main article or in development of JW's doctrine or even better in criticism of JW's but not here. --  Logical Thinker  03:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a rather stupid comment that its removal would hurt me. The illustration is directly relevant to the history of Jehovah's Witnesses, which is why it's there. BlackCab (talk) 03:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Your explanation is not satisfactory. I welcome 3rd part comments. If the decision was to keep the lapel card I would add KH image in organizational Structure section with the caption "A congregation of JW's" and "purple triangle" image in persecution section for similar reasons.--  Logical Thinker  04:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
You're sounding rather petulant. In fact the purple triangle image is entirely appropriate for the "persecution" section. A picture of a Kingdom Hall is not, however, relevant to the "Organization" section and should be removed. As another editor has pointed out to you, the "worship" section is the best place for such a picture, but there is already a better one there. You may also note that the picture you have added is of a building, not a "congregation". BlackCab (talk) 05:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
A Kingdom Hall is important as using a church image in other christian religion. I defined KH in the organization itself. So that the image could be used there.--  Logical Thinker  06:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
You seem to be forcing the issue, adding the wording for the sole purpose of justifying the use of an image. Only by a stretch of the imagination can a Kingdom Hall be considered to be a part of an organization, and even then it is so obliquely related it to the subject of that section it doesn't warrant the use of an illustration. BlackCab (talk) 06:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
A kingdom hall can be considered as a lowest node of an organization tree which have a head node at head Quarters. Thus it is the basic element of the organization and it is the largest in number. Organizing is also going on inside KH. That's why it warranted one paragraph in the organization section. But the parent node i.e) the HQ image is already given in title image, now we include the image or illustration of the lowest node(KH) in the organization. Please think liberally, I adjusted my views according to other editors comments. That's why I accepted the decision to keep HQ as the title image and now to your opinion on lapel card. The KH is added with a similar reason of lapel card. It will be odd if we not include an image of KH(church) in the article about a christian denomination. The worship section, however deals with how Worship goes on inside a KH. It assumes KH is already defined in organization section.--  Logical Thinker  08:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
This justification for inclusion of the Kingdom Hall image under Organization seems to be special pleading, and the wording about Kingdom Halls was injected into the article only (and admittedly) to 'justify' inclusion of the image. The previous quotation from Our Kingdom Ministry about Kingdom Halls not being part of the "organization" contradicts the new 'justification' given immediately above.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Who will say Kingdom Hall is not a part of Organization? Without Kingdom Hall or congregation what is the need of a Head Quarters? Headquarters controls all the Kingdom Hall's or congregations around the world. The KingdomMinistry does not say KH or congregation is not a part of Organization, but it says though KH is an entity of WT society it should not use any legal symbols or trademark of WT society. The Worship section seems to be explaining the KH as if it is already defined. Its the intention of some editors here NOT to include a KingdomHall because of their personal hostility towards JW's. It's not the duty of editors to find ways for deletion of good integral images, but should assume good faith. I have reverted the edits--  Logical Thinker  12:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
The point is this: Images are supposed to complement the article. However, what you have done is arbitrarily decide that the Organization section 'must' have a picture of a Kingdom Hall, and then you have modified the text of the section purely to 'justify' the inclusion of the image. Your suggestion that the Worship section doesn't clarify the term 'Kingdom Hall' is not at all assisted by the text you have added in the Organization section.--Jeffro77 (talk) 17:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Your initial reason for including an image of a second Kingdom Hall image in the article was that you were "forced" to do so because I opposed the removal of an image of a lapel badge illustrating the emphasis placed on expectations for the mid-1970s in WT literature.[1]. You wrote: "But I don't want to do such things because I know it makes the article to loss its quality." Now you insist its inclusion is "necessary" until a consensus is reached. Your comments about "hostile" editors, who are offering rational reasons for its deletion, betray your own motives. BlackCab (talk) 03:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

"Millenarian" and "Restorationist"

I have put the [citation needed] template next to these words in the article. The words are only mentioned once in the entire article (excluding the "infobox"). I am doing this because:

a. There are no references supporting either of these words in the first place. It could be opinion, as these two words can cover a broad range of ideas.

b. I have never seen Jehovah's Witnesses claim to be a millenarian or restorationist religion in their publications. I welcome anyone who has a reference to add it to the article, but please don't add very old JW publications as a reference as they are most likely out-of-date.

I welcome any discussion on this, but all information in Wikipedia articles needs to be properly sourced. Wikipedia guidelines also discourage the use of weasel words. Although you may not think that the words "millenarian" or "restorationist" are weasel words, the Wikipedia article on millenarianism frequently uses the word "sect" even though this is discouraged in this guidline. Beeshoney (talk) 17:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

What the JWs themselves say is not particularly relevant, however, it is academic opinion which we place most emphasis on. M. James Penton in Apocalypse delayed refers to their millenarian eschatology here, and religioustolerance.org numbers it among the restorationist Christian movements here. John Carter (talk) 17:20, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

More than one reference would be nice, however. A lot of information is published on Jehovah's Witnesses, and so if these two words are true, information supporting them shouldn't be hard to find.

In my opinion, it is relevant that Jehovah's Witnesses don't claim to be a millenarian or restorationist religion. Firstly, it's difficult for a third party to claim that JW's are a millenarian and/or restorationist religion when the "Governing Body" of Jehovah's Witnesses - who make the decisions on doctrinal matters - themselves do not claim to be either of these. Secondly, many other religions who claim to be "millenarian" or "restorationist" have very different beliefs compared to Jehovah's Witnesses, and as I was saying before, these two words can cover a broad spectrum. Once again I direct attention to this guidline. Beeshoney (talk) 18:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The terms "millenarian" and "restorationist" have specific meanings, and those meanings accurately describe the relevant beliefs of JWs, regardless of whether they specifically use those particular words. Though JWs do not explicitly define themselves as "restorationist", their publications certainly do claim to posit them as a 'restoration of first century Christianity'. The fact that JWs are restorationist and millenarian has no bearing whatsoever on specific interpretations held by JWs in contrast to any other group beyond those fundamental definitions.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I am still not happy with the word "millenarian". The article on this uses far too many weasel words - mostly "sect". Also, the reference used to support this claim - which comes from the Oxford English Dictionary - says: ""Jehovah's Witness: a member of a fundamentalist millenary sect". However, when the OED defines the words "sect", it uses words such as: "to leave", "to dissect", "to break away". Jehovah's Witnesses have not "broken away" from any other religion, so using this word is inappropriate. I do wonder how much the writers of the OED actually know about Jehovah's Witnesses anyway. Beeshoney (talk) 12:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The term "sect" is already discussed and finally concluded to be a "Christian denomination" as Jeffro pointed out in an earlier discussion. Better if we could find another reference which gives the term "millenarian". It is also notable that JW's are given in infobox, as a branch of Bible students movement. If it is the case how did Bible students movement was renamed as JW's? In 2010 convention released DVD(Available at Youtube in 6 parts here) on the history of Jehovah's Witnesses, it discusses with drama's(including characters of Russel, Rutherford etc) the entire history of JW's from 1830(including detailed illustration on doctrinal changes, organizational changes, expectations and enlightenment). It uses bible students movement synonymous to Jehovah's Witnesses and not as a branch split from bible students movement. --  Logical Thinker  14:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
It is true that JWs retroactively claim that "Bible Students" is simply a former name of their religion. However, in reality, the Bible Student movement still exists entirely independent of Jehovah's Witnesses, though those other groups have not had the backing of the original corporation, the Watch Tower Society. Therefore it is not correct to state that the religion was simply renamed. The cause of this misnoma ultimately goes back to the Watch Tower Society presidency dispute of 1917. Jehovah's Witnesses are certainly the largest branch of the Bible Student movement, but they are a branch nonetheless.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Russell and Barbour - Time Prophecies - The Three Worlds

In the Wiki article it states that Russell and Barbour co-wrote The Three Worlds which wrote about their thoughts on 1874 being the time of Christ's invisible presence.

It would be important to note that it was Barbour who convinced Russell of the date 1874, and that Russell had rejected any time prophecies, if that sentence were to remain in the Wikipedia article. The Wiki article gives the impression that the date of 1874 was something that Russell and Barbour came up with together, which was not the case.

This is a reference on that fact

Jehovah's Witnesses Proclaimers of God's Kingdom chap. 5 pp. 46-47 Proclaiming the Lord’s Return (1870-1914)
One morning in January 1876, 23-year-old Russell received a copy of a religious periodical called Herald of the Morning. From the picture on the cover, he could see that it was identified with Adventism. The editor, Nelson H. Barbour, of Rochester, New York, believed that the object of Christ’s return was not to destroy the families of the earth but to bless them and that his coming would be not in the flesh but as a spirit. Why, this was in agreement with what Russell and his associates in Allegheny had believed for some time! Curiously, though, Barbour believed from Biblical time-prophecies that Christ was already present (invisibly) and that the harvest work of gathering “the wheat” (true Christians making up the Kingdom class) was already due.—Matt., chap. 13.
Russell had shied away from Biblical time prophecies. Now, however, he wondered: “Could it be that the time prophecies which I had so long despised, because of their misuse by Adventists, were really meant to indicate when the Lord would be invisibly present to set up his Kingdom?” With his insatiable thirst for Scriptural truth, Russell had to learn more. So he arranged to meet with Barbour in Philadelphia. This meeting confirmed their agreement on a number of Bible teachings and provided an opportunity for them to exchange views. “When we first met,” Russell later stated, “he had much to learn from me on the fulness of restitution based upon the sufficiency of the ransom given for all, as I had much to learn from him concerning time.” Barbour succeeded in convincing Russell that Christ’s invisible presence had begun in 1874.
To counteract wrong views regarding the Lord’s return, Russell wrote the pamphlet The Object and Manner of Our Lord’s Return. It was published in 1877. That same year Barbour and Russell jointly published Three Worlds, and the Harvest of This World. This 196-page book discussed the subjects of restitution and Biblical time prophecies. Though each subject had been treated by others before, in Russell’s view this book was “the first to combine the idea of restitution with time-prophecy.” It presented the view that Jesus Christ’s invisible presence dated from the autumn of 1874.

Natural (talk) 21:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

Russell was not a JW, and JWs did not exist during Russell's lifetime. Greater detail about Russell beyond what is relevant to the development of JWs is out of the scope of this article. Russell doesn't need 'defending' at this article, and the details you raised are sufficiently covered at Charles Taze Russell.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Natural, you're making a distinction that is utterly unimportant. Barbour convinced Russell that the Christ had returned in 1874 and Russell believed it until he died in 1916. In the context of a discussion on the early beliefs of the Bible Study movement, from which Jehovah's Witnesses evolved, the sentence is entirely accurate. BlackCab (talk) 12:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. Russell split with Barbour over the matter of transubstantiation, not about 1874.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
If the Wikipedia article is going to go into such detail about Russell on the Jehovah's Witnesses page. We've gone through this point about Russell already, some say that Russell was not a Jehovah's Witness and so shouldn't be discussed on this page, others say he is closely tied to Jehovah's Witnesses, as is indicated by the continuity of The Watchtower, which Russell started, then any statements about Russell need to be clarified, especially in view of the fact that this article makes an issue over "failed predictions," terminology such as "false prophet". Therefore, it needs to be noted, if the issue of 1874 is going to be raised in this article, that it wasn't Russell's idea, it was not Jehovah's Witnesses idea, really, it was Nelson Barbour's idea, who had nothing to do with Jehovah's Witnesses. So, either the line needs to be edited out of the article, in harmony with Jeff77 bent on simplifying the article. Or if BlackCab wants to keep it or insists on keeping, then the incomplete thought expressed in Wikipedia about Russell's connection to the thinking behind the date 1874 needs to be clarified. Natural (talk) 15:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)Natural
It's an historical fact, nothing more or less. The teaching about Christ's invisible return was a distinctive teaching of the Bible Student movement, which continued after the schisms of the early 20th century and which are still embraced by Jehovah's Witnesses. Only the date was changed. You are making some pretty stupid assumptions here and I really can't see the value of the point you make. BlackCab (talk) 20:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I feel that it is necessary to provide these details, because User:BlackCab is making strong efforts to damage the reputation of Jehovah's Witnesses on the Wikipedia pages about Jehovah's Witnesses, by attempting to create a strong argument concerning failed predictions by Jehovah's Witnesses and emphasizing these in his additions to the Wikipedia article. Evidence of User:BlackCab doing this on the Wikipedia article on Jehovah's Witnesses can be seen from his addtion of the illustration concerning JW and 1975, the convention lapel, which is an effort by him to draw attention to the JW and 1975 "predication". His wording had to be edited which was more strongly worded when it was put up. And the section on False Predictions, where User:BlackCab has created his own argument to persuade the reader that JW are a false prophet, and continuing to add to his argument there. The reversal of edits to clarify the 1874 date is a similar effort to edit out clarifying information so that a strong POV supporting his argument remains in the article. Natural (talk) 10:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)Natural
Also, I believe that Russell differntiated between Jesus' "return" and the "invisible presence" of Jesus. Barbour also. I think that what Barbour taught was that Jesus' "invisible presence" began in 1914.
"Barbour succeeded in convincing Russell that Christ’s invisible presence had begun in 1874." Proclaimers book Chap 5 p.47Natural (talk) 10:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)Natural
The JW Proclaimers book is not entirely neutral in its attempt to distance Russell from his predictions about the period from 1874 to 1914 which failed to culminate in Armageddon. However Russell accepted that belief, and continued to hold to it long after his separation from Barbour. The Watch Tower makes positive reference to 1874 right up until the December 1916 issue when Russell died.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
There is no doubt that Russell took hold on that idea, of 1874 and 1914, and that he published them in the Watchtower from 1879 (or somethint close to that) to 1914. The only detail being, that they are referred to sometimes as his teachings, but he was persuaded by others on those teachings, and they weren't original to him. Natural (talk) 09:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

I'm wondering what the difference is between someone teaching something as fact that he/she created, or someone teaching something as fact that he/she was convinced of? If Natural were to convince me that 2+2=5, and I were then to teach other people that same formula, it is MY teaching, regardless of where it originally came from. Vyselink (talk) 03:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Whose teaching it is kind of depends on what is convenient at the time, apparently. When it is a matter of allegedly 'fulfilling' predictions for 1914, then it is touted—proudly and frequently—as the message of Russell and his Bible Students, retroactively re-branded as JWs. But when it is a matter of those predictions failing, User:Naturalpsychology assures us that Russell was simply restating what other ministers had predicted decades earlier.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Russell believed it, Russell taught it, Russell created a publishing empire out of writing about it. Naturalpsychology is concocting a very peculiar argument in order to avoid the clear statement of Russell's belief. He is getting spooked at the most innocuous statements, judging them to be part of some vast conspiracy against his religion. BlackCab (talk) 03:55, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

That is a convoluted interpretation of Natural's viewpoint, and an unnecessary questioning of good faith. On the other hand, the arguments presented here are either speculative or relatively insignificant, probably both. Eusebius12 (talk) 13:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Rutherford

I have a question about this statement, and don't mean it in a challenging way. In what way did Rutherford do what is stated below, "centralizing control"?

"Rutherford continued to centralize organizational control"

Natural (talk) 23:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

See Joseph Franklin Rutherford, History of Jehovah's Witnesses or read one of the many histories of the religion by non-WTS sources. Congregations had previously been autonomous bodies that elected their own elders. Rutherford required them to submit to direction from Brooklyn, have all appointments made or approved by Brooklyn, required them to report to Brooklyn on individuals' missionary work, provided them with quotas to fill, provided them with sermons and phonograph records to deliver a unified message provided by himself ... there's quite a list. It was part of the reason most of the early Bible Students quit. BlackCab (talk) 23:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Rutherford became president around 1917. Elders were apointed by Brooklyn in 1938. That does not really prove that point that is stated that he centralized control. It's 21 years later that that happened.
The phonograph work was started in 1934, 17 years after 1917.
What year do you say that Rutherford provided them with quotas? I can't find that information anywhere.
In what way did Rutherford require them to submit to direction from Brooklyn?

So far I cann't evidence for your claim until at least 1938. Using the phonograph in the ministry doesn't qualify as centralized "control". It might centralize a message of evangelization, but it needs to be spelled out, what you mean be "centralized control". That is an intrepretation of the facts, it is not a fact itself. But please answer the two questions about the year of the quotas, and how and when did Rutherford require them to submit to direction from Brooklyn. Natural (talk) 09:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

Rutherford began making the structure more authoritarian from 1917 when he moved for his role of president to be given complete control of the Society.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
That really didn't change the structure of the International Bible Students at all. Previous to that Russell was the president and pretty much made all the decisions. After Russell, Rutherford was president, and he pretty much made all the decisions. After Knorr became president, things changed and gradually became less centralized. I dont' see yet where Rutherford's organizational methods were any different than Russel's. In the evangelizing aspect, reporting ministry time is noted, but there was not organized ministry before Rutherford. So what changed wasn't the centralized organization of the thing, but the public ministry itself, which only started, really, in 1919. Natural (talk) 17:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)Natural
Unfortunately you know too little about the history of your religion to make an accurate assessment. Both Penton (page 60) and Rogerson (p.50) both write about Rutherford's actions in centralizing authority, shifting it from the independent ecclesias to the Watch Tower Society in Brooklyn. Both use that term. Wills (pgs 175-9) discusses the change. BlackCab (talk) 21:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I realize I'm jumping into this argument a little late, but according to Raymond Franz's Crisis of Conscience (Fourth Edition, page 61, published 2007) "At the annual corporation meeting in January, 1917, Rutherford was elected to replace Russell as president of the Watch Tower corporation. Early in his presidency, four of the seven Directors (a majority) took issue with what they viewed as arbitrary action on the part of the president. He was not recognizing the Board of Directors and working with it as a body but was acting unilaterally, taking actions and informing them later of what he had decided to do. ...Their expressing objection led to their swift elimination." Later, on page 68, Franz says "...the historical record demonstrates that anyone, including any member of the Board of Directors or of those on the Editorial Committe, who expressed disagreement with Rutherford was quickly eliminated from whatever organizational position that person occupied. One has only to talk with others who were at the headquarters during his presidency to know that...to all intents and purposes, the "Judge's" word was law". In anticipation of the argument that Raymond Franz was disfellowshipped, I simply want to state the fact that Mr. Franz was associated with the JW's during the last five years of Rutherford's presidency, and later would be proclaimed one of the "anointed" and serve on the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses from October 20, 1971 until May 22, 1980 when he voluntarily resigned his position. Vyselink (talk) 02:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Most histories of the Witnesses discuss the organizational changes Rutherford introduced after his elevation to the presidency. Central to those were the move in 1919 to require congregations to register with the WTS and allow the WTS to appoint a director in each congregation. As the 1954 WT history book, "Jehovah's Witnesses in the Divine Purpose", reported: "This meant that for the first time authority was being taken away from the democratically controlled congregations under their "elective elders," and direction was to reside now, specifically, under the Society's international supervision. True, it was limited, but the visible theocratic organization got started with this arrangement." Over time Rutherford dismantled the system of locally elected elders, required members to report their missionary activity to headquarters (1920, see Divine Purpose, pg 96) and in a series of Watchtower articles in 1938 (May 15, June 15) told companies (or congregations) to "get in line" with the changes (pg 179), noted that "individualism of the respective companies has been done away with" (pg 186) and urged congregations to pass a resolution in which they ceded all organizational authority to Brooklyn. (page 182). Witnessing quotas were introduced in 1943. (See WT, July 1, 1943, pg 204-206). As I've mentioned, Witnesses often know little of the history of their own religion, imagining the power structure of today has always existed. Hence the objections of a member of the religion above who challenges the statement (sourced from published books) that Rutherford centralized authority and control. BlackCab (talk) 04:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Most Jehovah's Witnesses who are well read, know the history of the doing away with elected elders. It is in all the history publications of Jehovah's Witnesses and the Watchtower also. I have to double check the dates here, I thought elective elders were done away with in the 1930s,not 1920 as stated above. Maybe reporting to headquarters began in 1920, but not the elective elders in 1920?
Do you have a reference on this,
Central to those were the move in 1919 to require congregations to register with the WTS and allow the WTS to appoint a director in each congregation.Natural (talk) 13:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)Natural
Also, it should be noted, that Ray Franz got most of his history from Edmund Gruss's book on the Four Presidents, it wasn't original research, from what I understand. Natural (talk) 13:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

I'm not sure what it matters that it may not have been "original" research. As long as the information is correct, we can only cite where we got it from, not where our sources got it from. Vyselink (talk) 23:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


Well, the point was made as if it was significant, that Franz was associated with JWs for 5 years under Rutherford. I was a JW for 4 years while FW Franz was President of the WTS, does that make me an expert on 'his' era? The other point is that many of these sources are from ex-JWs, whose literature forms a body of what would best be described as attack literature, and sources like Penton and Ray Franz should be identified as belonging to that genre. Nevertheless, some of the specific points mentioned are consonant with known facts about Rutherford, ie his extreme forthrightness and strong personality, the overriding of the Board of Directors (the resultant revolt and split is documented in JW and non-JW sources), although I would like to see more substantiation on several of the assertions. Eusebius12 (talk) 13:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

It is not merely that the periods of Franz and Rutherford overlapped, but that it is not only plausible but highly likely that, as the nephew of a headquarters staffer since 1920, R. Franz had direct contact with Rutherford during that time. Your comparison is therefore only valid if you also had direct contact with F. Franz.
I have previously indicated that sources who are former members should be identified as such, and that their statements should be clearly stated as their opinions unless those opinions can be verified from other sources. The article clearly specifies that Raymond Franz is a former member and a critic of the religion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

It is possible that such contact took place, but not apparently verifiable, nor indeed is the significance or extent of that contact established. As per the identifications as 'critics', this is welcome. Eusebius12 (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Is the History section too large?

In my honest opinion, I think most people that come to this article do not wish to read about previous "Presidents" of Jehovah's Witnesses. There is already an article on the History of Jehovah's Witnesses. I believe that most people are more interested in the Organisation, Beliefs, Practises, etc. of Jehovah's Witnesses.

I do not propose removing the History section completely, but I do think it needs to be scaled down. Currently it takes up a significantly large (and I think too large) section of the article.

What do others think? Beeshoney (talk) 17:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I had emphasized this issue many times. But it seems one or two non-JW editors have reserved first edit rights. I am not discouraging you, but assume good faith and make a try.--  Logical Thinker  19:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll give Jeffro77 and BlackCab three days to make a comment before I decide to do anything, as I think it's necessary to hear what they have to say. However, nobody "controls" an article. Also, Wikipedia editors are discouraged from solely editing articles on one subject, but as you can see from Jeffro77's and BlackCab's edit histories, this is not the case.

Another concern I have is that nearly all main contributions to the article are made by a "select" group of editors (and these editors seem to undo a lot of contributions made by other editors). This trend can be seen here and here. I'm not too concerned about this, though, as none of these editors are Administrators. Beeshoney (talk) 20:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

It's always interesting to read what an editor thinks "people come to this article to read". You believe most want to read about the organization, beliefs and practices. All those points are comprehensively treated, and all have their own spinoff articles to allow readers to examine those subjects in more depth. But you've raised a suggestion. What specific parts of the history section do you think should be deleted or trimmed? And why? BlackCab (talk) 21:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't object to trimming the History section, so long as elements relating directly to the development of core organizational or doctrinal matters are not removed. You can always be bold and edit the History section to your liking and then discuss, or you can present your specific concerns about article content to discuss first. It's not yet clear what you would like to remove.
Most of my edits relate to refactoring and reformatting existing material and removing clear bias both for and against the religion. If you would like to discuss a particular change to the article of mine that you regard to be inappropriate, be specific. Do not make broad accusations.
Where are 'Wikipedia editors discouraged from solely editing articles on one subject'??--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Logicalthinker33, you stated in another section that the History section contains "redundant" information. Please indicate the information to which you're referring.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I was discouraged from focusing on editing just one subject by an Administrator, and I do remember that he/she brought up a Wikipedia guideline. I'm looking for it.

About the History section, there's basically a lot of scrolling to do before you get to the current info about JW's.

I think the first paragraph about Russell is far too long. Also, does the Photo Drama of Creation really need covering here when it is mentioned in the History article?

I could go on, but I'll make my edits later and see what you think. And no, I won't delete whole sections about organisational / doctrinal changes. Beeshoney (talk) 11:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

PS. What exactly does Jeffro77 mean by the comment "the article of mine"? Beeshoney (talk) 12:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Assuming good faith, I'd suggest he means "If you would like to discuss a particular change of mine to the article that you regard to be inappropriate ..." BlackCab (talk) 12:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
In my opinion the sub headings given are inappropriate, better if we could simplify it by using headings such as Bible student movement, Renaming to Jehovah's Witnesses and modern day development. I would also surely suggest the removal of the image of 1970 circuit assembly Lapel card particularly because, it can be considered as giving more importance to 1975 issue than it deserved, a kind of indirect criticism. Doctrinal and organizational changes need trimming. However I am not for a debate neither I want to be involved in trimming, because I am already tired of talks with Black Cab(seem to be having first edit rights) and Jeffro (who had claimed "the article is of him" though I do not know in what sense).--  Logical Thinker  14:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
BlackCab is correct in regard to "a particular change to the article of mine". If I imagined the article to be mine (a ridiculous notion), I would say my article, not the article of mine. The fact that it needed clarification says more about the editors who misunderstood than it does about me.
Regarding Logicalthinker's suggestions for the History section, I was thinking something similar in regard to different stages of development rather than strictly by presidential eras, but with something such as Background for detail prior to the formal development of Jehovah's Witnesses. Because the Bible Student movement continued to exist (and still does), it was not simply a matter of renaming.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Hope editors could get some more idea on history by Watching this video on You-tube in 6 parts here.--  Logical Thinker  15:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Hardly neutral. If there is a transcript I'll read it, but I have no inclination to watch the video.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying Jeffro77 - I do not mean to be offensive and do not wish to get into an argument. I have a fairly busy life outside of Wikipedia, so probably won't edit the History section today. Beeshoney (talk) 17:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll start trimming it. It's been there a long time and it's never a bad idea to take a fresh look at it. BlackCab (talk) 23:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I didn't realise Beeshoney had already started. His/her trim is generally OK, though I'll reinstate a couple of brief points that need to be there as a primer to the organization history. The section is better broken into just two sections: the Russell/Rutherford years and beyond. BlackCab (talk) 23:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
The trimming that has been done seems fairly selective. Information about no sectarian name and the power struggle has been removed, but apparently it is vitally important that the article boasts about Russell's newspaper syndication??? I don't have time to look at this closely right now.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I could remove more, but I don't want to remove too much in case you two aren't happy with it. I thought I'd do just a little first. Beeshoney (talk) 07:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

BTW the section titles are much better. Beeshoney (talk) 07:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh and I think that the Photo Drama of Creation is worth pointing out because it had a large audience, and it was one of the first colour & audio mention "films" at the time. Beeshoney (talk) 07:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Citing sources in intro

Sources were cited for "restorationist" and "millenarian" in the article intro until this edit [2] in July 2010 on the basis of WP:LEADCITE. Those terms do not appear elsewhere in the article, so it is reasonable to have sources cited here. BlackCab (talk) 23:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd still like another source for the word "millenarian". "Restorationist", hmmm, I guess that pretty well sums up the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses. Beeshoney (talk) 17:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I have did it. --  Logical Thinker  18:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Beeshoney, the definition of millenarian is fairly plain. Just because JWs may not use the particular word, the duck test would seem to apply. Read the basic definition in the lead of millenarian. Is there anything about that that you believe is not consistent with Witness beliefs?--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
This was discussed exhaustively at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 50 and Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 49. You may be interested to read Counting the Days to Armageddon by Robert Crompton, a very thorough examination of the history of the evolution of the Witnesses' eschatology. Crompton consistently uses the terms "millenialism" to describe the WTS theology. There were suggestions to use that term instead of, or as well as, "millenarian" in the article, but the consensus was to go with the latter. BlackCab (talk) 01:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, the word can stay. However, this article (Millennialism), is much better than this article (Millenarian). The article on Millennialism is much more accurate at describing the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses on this topic, and is a much better article in the first place. Therefore, I have changed to link from Millenarian to Millennialism.

Because the article on Millenarian is of such poor quality (few references, and it frequently uses the word "sect), I am considering putting it up for PROD, and if necessary, AfD. Any significant portions of the Millenarian article (of which I think there are none), could be merged into the Millennialism article. Beeshoney (talk) 14:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll admit that it's not perfect at describing the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses, but it doesn't need to be, as the article gives a general view on the topic. Beeshoney (talk) 14:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

In-line quotes

The following phrases in the 'social criticism' section are potentially confrontational:

  • seldom allowed a dignified exit
  • Jehovah's Witnesses see themselves as part of the power structure rather than subject to it
  • mental isolation with the intent of mind control

I think it would be more helpful for those phrases to be replaced with actual quotations from the source materials within the actual article text.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the changes BlackCab. Regarding the statement:
  • using elements of mind control by exercising "intellectual dominance" over Witnesses, controlling information and creating "mental isolation".
Would it be possible to expand the actual quote rather than only the special terms? Quoting only the special terms may come across as 'scare quotes' rather than identifying an actual quote from the source.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I'll come back to it when I get a moment. Franz develops the argument over several pages (pg 408-417, for my own reference), elaborating on each of those aspects individually after discussing points made in a Steve Hassan book on mind control. BlackCab (talk) 13:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Watchtower was and is non-profit, not a business

Russell sold his business to establish the Watchtower. This is confusing - as a "business convenience" - and is not relevant. Watchtower was non-profit, not a business, whatever this might be quoting from.

Forsaking All for the Kingdom

Charles Taze Russell personally took that counsel to heart. He sold his prospering haberdashery business, gradually reduced other business interests, and then used all his earthly possessions to help people in a spiritual way. (Compare Matthew 6:19-21.) It was not something that he did for merely a few years. Right down till his death, he used all his resources—his mental ability, his physical health, his material possessions—to teach others the great message of Messiah’s Kingdom. At Russell’s funeral an associate, Joseph F. Rutherford, stated: “Charles Taze Russell was loyal to God, loyal to Christ Jesus, loyal to the cause of Messiah’s Kingdom.” JW- Proclaimers of God's Kingdom. Chapter 18 p. 284 “Seeking First the Kingdom”.Natural (talk) 16:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

The use of the term is important. He used the term "business convenience" deliberately to explain why he set it up. In later years, under a different president, the society became a religious organization and its charter was amended accordingly. BlackCab (talk) 21:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Unrepentance a factor in blood transfusions disfellowshipped

JW Proclaimers of God's Kingdom chap. 13 pp. 183-184 Recognized by Our Conduct

Quote - Consistent with that understanding of matters, beginning in 1961 any who ignored the divine requirement, accepted blood transfusions, and manifested an unrepentant attitude were disfellowshipped from the congregations of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Natural (talk) 16:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

Neutrality of "Failed Predictions" Section

If the "Failed Predictions" is going to be so heavily argued on the Wikipedia page, then the predictions of Jehovah's Witnesses that have come true or that are supported by secular writings should be highlight in the same section or in a separate section. Natural (talk) 10:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

There are no verifiable successful predictions to report. Specifically in regard to those you will claim...
  • Neither Armagedden or anything else of significance broke out in October of 1914. World War I began too early to correlate with anything predicted by Russell, which is why Jesus' 'presence' was (later) deemed 'invisible'.
  • Claims that the League of Nations would fail were not unique to the Bible Students, and other millenarians had said as much in 1918, before the Bible Students. Their specific predictions about the League were borrowed from William Edwy Vine.
The same could be said of Jehovah's Witnesses "predications, then, if you are to use that logic. 1914 prediction was not unique to Jehovah's Witnesses, it had been advanced since the 1700s. Jehovah's Witnesses did not originate that teaching or thinking scriptural reasoning behind it. The reasoning that developed the 1975 and 1925 ideas had already been advanced in the 1800s, only with different anchor dates. If you are to use that reasoning, then it should be consistent throughout the article.Natural (talk) 17:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)Natural
It's unclear how you imagine it to be a particularly strong defence that not only were Bible Students' and JWs' predictions wrong, but also that they were not the source of the predictions.--Jeffro77 (talk) 17:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Bible Students and JWs promoted those dates, and they were wrong. If there are articles about other notable groups that made similar wrong predictions, I have no objection to similarly noting at those articles that their predictions were also false.--Jeffro77 (talk) 18:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  • There is no evidence that disasters or other problems specifically began or increased in severity as of October 1914.
  • It was not a secret that a world organisation would develop following World War II. Specific plans for such a new organisation were drafted in 1939, and the specific name "United Nations" was officially used in January 1942.
--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
It would make more sense to include the witnesses response to the failed predictions. Yesterday I heard a JW elder explain that yes, JW have made mistakes in predicting the armageddon, like someone waiting for an honored guest to arrive they may mistake the slightest sound in the driveway for his arrival - this however does not mean that the guest will not come later.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Whether or not you interpret these events as fulfillment of Bible prophecy, Jehovah's Witnesses predictions, or of Jehovah's Witnesses, or Russell's interpretations of the predictions, some verifiable resources view the predictions of Jehovah's Witnesses in a positive light. If the negative elements of "failed predictions are highlighed throughout the Wikipedia article and in specific sections, that is one point of view (POV), from a negative angle.
Others view it in a positive light, and that is another point of view (POV). Then, if the negative is to be highlighted, then to achieve a Neutral Point of View, then the positive must also be highlighted. This is the positive side of the predictions of Jehovah's Witnesses.
1. fulfilled “prophecy” of 1914
Proclaiming the Lord’s Return (1870-1914) Proclaimers of God's Kingdom chapter 5 p. 60
When World War I broke out in 1914, “The World,” then a leading newspaper in New York City, stated in its magazine section: “The terrific war outbreak in Europe has fulfilled an extraordinary prophecy. . . . ‘Look out for 1914!’ has been the cry of the hundreds of travelling evangelists, who, representing this strange creed [associated with Russell], have gone up and down the country enunciating the doctrine that ‘the Kingdom of God is at hand.’”—“The World Magazine,” August 30, 1914.
That might not be your particular viewpoint or interpretation, but this reporter looked at it from that viewpoint, and perhaps others as well.
The intentionally sensationalist headline ignored the fact that Russell's prediction was for October of 1914. Armageddon was supposed to "break out with suddenness and force not long after October, 1914" (Watch Tower, May 15, 1911). There simply was no such fulfilment.--Jeffro77 (talk) 17:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
2. Global peace period following WWII fulfilled “predication”
Some believed that WWII would culminate in Armageddon. Knorr spoke in 1942 that there would be a period of peace in which the good news would be preached in all the earth.
"This gave impetus to a global campaign that over the years has reached into more than 235 lands and is not yet finished." Conventions Proof of Our Brotherhood Kingdom Proclaimers book - chap. 17 p. 262
In the midst of World War II, in 1942, when some wondered whether the preaching work was perhaps just about finished, the convention public talk delivered by N. H. Knorr, the newly designated president of the Watch Tower Society, was “Peace—Can It Last?” The explanation in that discourse of the symbolic “scarlet-colored wild beast” of Revelation chapter 17 opened up to the view of Jehovah’s Witnesses a period following World War II in which there would be opportunity to direct yet more people to God’s Kingdom. ::3. The defunct League of Nations would arise again.
That there would be a period of peace after a war ends is unsurprising, nor is it really a specific 'prediction'. They did not say when the war would end, or any other specific information. Given that there were already specific plans in place for the United Nations, the statement is not remarkable, except under the light of historical revisionism. (This paragraph applies equally to your third section immediately below.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 17:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
3. Rise of the United Nations
“They Are No Part of the World” chap. 14 pp. 192-193
A Political Expression of God’s Kingdom?
While World War II was still under way, in 1942, Jehovah’s Witnesses had already discerned from the Bible, at Revelation 17:8, that the world peace organization would rise again, also that it would fail to bring lasting peace. This was explained by N. H. Knorr, then president of the Watch Tower Society, in the convention discourse “Peace—Can It Last?”
Whether you believe that that was a prophecy, prediction, or common sense, it is the positive equivalent of the mistakes made in 1975. If the Wikipedia article is going to highlight 1975, even call attention to that date wtih an illustration (the 1974 convention badge), then this information should also be included to achieve a WP:NPOV as required by Wikipedia.
It could be that your personal view is cynical, and that is one reaction, that's fine, that's your viewpoint, but other authoritative sources do not share that viewpoint. If both viewpoints are expressed, then a WP:NPOV is achieved. If one viewpoint is expressed, then it is not a WP:NPOV Natural (talk) 17:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)Natural
You are comparing 'predictions' that can be twisted into some kind of loose 'fulfilment' if specific elements of the predictions are conveniently ignored, with predictions that quite definitely failed. Because your comparison is flawed, there is no need to proceed further. Would you also endorse Nostradamus on the basis that some of his ravings can be spuriously contorted into alleged fulfilments?--Jeffro77 (talk) 17:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
The 1914 "prophecy" here, is not the words of Jehovah's Witnesses, but a neutral source. Whether anyone today believes it tto be fulfillment of prophecy or not is really irrelevant. To me, the fulfillment of Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21, is very specific and very different than Nostrodaumus. Jesus stated in Luke that Jerusalem would be surrounded by pointed sstakes and then destroyed. The Arch of Titus testifies to the prophecies of Jesus, which anyone can see in Rome. Additionally, there are fragments of the Gospels dating back to very close the their having been written, within 25 years. So I don't know if you are comparing Bible prophecies to Nostradaumus, or Jehovah's Witnesses interpretations of them. In any case, fulfillment of 1914, or discrediting it as of any significance is a matter of viewpoint. I feel that "predicting" that the League of Nations would rise again, when it was defunct based on Bible prophecy, not on world events, is significant. You might not think so, but again, it is a matter of viewpoint. Wikipedia is suppossed to present both viewpoints, not just the one that specific editors might find supports their point of view. Natural (talk) 19:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)Natural
The claim that there are fragments of the gospels within 25 years of the originals doesn't prove much, as they may actually have been the originals themselves and 25 years after the alleged writing would put them after 70AD. (Also, the Watch Tower Society doesn't put much credence in scientific or archaeological dating methods when the results are inconvenient for their purposes.) There is only a small amount of evidence that Jesus existed at all, and there is no evidence that Jesus ever said or did many of the things attributed to him in the Bible, many of which were invented later or recycled from pagan myths. However, that is not directly related to the issue here of JW predictions.
There is no evidence that predicting the return of the League of Nations (though it was actually replaced by a different organisation) was based only on scriptures rather than on world events and information that was publicly available at the time. Your opinion that it is a 'remarkable' prediction is not the benchmark for inclusion. Do you have a neutral reference that considers this 'prediction' to be particularly remarkable?--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
After some brief checking, I have confirmed that your claim that "there are fragments of the Gospels dating back to very close the their having been written, within 25 years" is not supported by any available consensus. The earliest dates attributed to the oldest known fragments for the gospels of Matthew, Mark & Luke (John does not mention the 'prophecy') are dated to 150AD, 350AD, and 175AD, respectively. (A 1996 Watchtower article cited fringe material assigning an earlier date for Papyrus 64, but that date is not accepted in the mainstream.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Although Rylands 52 is generally accepted as the earliest extant record of a canonical New Testament text,[2] the dating of the papyrus is by no means the subject of consensus among critical scholars. The style of the script is strongly Hadrianic, which would suggest a most probable date somewhere between 117 CE and 138 CE. But the difficulty of fixing the date of a fragment based solely on paleographic evidence allows a much wider range, potentially extending from before 100 CE past 150 CE.
The Gospel of John itself was written around 98 CE, which would make the Rylands Library Papyrus P52 between 2, 19, 40, or 52 years from the original.Natural (talk) 14:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)Natural
I'm puzzled by user:Naturalpsychology's claim that the reference to failed predictions is "heavily argued". It's delicately worded, refers to no specific prediction and almost half the text in that section is a defence. But it's reasonable that a line be inserted that says the WTS has claimed that predictions on x, y and z were fulfilled, if indeed the society has claimed as much. Any expansion on that would properly be included under the appropriate section in Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses. BlackCab (talk) 03:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
That is a reasonable response.Natural (talk) 20:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)Natural
Based on Blackcab's response above, this was added,
It also notes that some interpretations of Bible prophecy in modern times have been fulfilled, such as the rise of the United Nations after the League of Nations demise, and a period of peace after World War II in which the good news of the Kingdom would be preached.[307]When World War I broke out, a leading newspaper in New York City stated that the outbreak of WWI fulfilled an extraordinary prophecy, proclaimed by the creed associated with Charles T. Russell. [308]

Natural (talk) 21:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

JWs did not predict that 'the UN would rise after the demise of the League of Nations', which is simply reinterpreting after the fact. The 'prediction' was that 'the League would return'. It is certainly misleading to assert as a 'fulfilled prediction', the retroactive claim that the League 'returned' as the UN. The League was officially disbanded in 1946, after the formation of the UN. The article can state that JWs say their predictions have been fulfilled, but an example would have to be clear and neutral without requiring lengthy elaboration.
Similarly, the remark from the 'leading newspaper' (The World Magazine) about 1914 was simply sensationalism, remarking on the (wrong) events that happened in the 'right' year. The fact that the newspaper made its announcement in August clearly indicates that it was not really a 'fulfilment' of the Bible Students' (not JWs') expectation of Armageddon in October of that year. Additionally, you previously claimed that Russell cannot be credited with 'predictions' about 1914 because other ministers had made similar predictions decades previously. You can't have it both ways.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
William Edwy Vine says "Neither Armagedden or anything else of significance broke out in October of 1914. World War I began too early to correlate with anything predicted by Russell, which is why Jesus' 'presence' was (later) deemed 'invisible'." Look up the Wiki article on World War 1. It started in the Summer of 1914. Summer ends on Sept 21, right? That would be a week before October 1914. World War 1 is nothing significant, huh? Wow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.14.27 (talk) 04:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
That's some pretty twisted 'logic'. (Even aside from the fact that you have wrongly attributed my earlier Talk comment to William Edwy Vine.) Your false syllogism attempting to correlate the beginning of World War I (in July) with the end of summer being close to October is mildly amusing, but entirely irrelevant. The Bible Students claimed that Armageddon would "break out with suddenness and force not long after October, 1914." That simply did not happen, and the prediction cannot validly be reconciled with entirely different events that happened months earlier, particularly in regard to the JW belief of a period of exactly 2520 years from October 607BC until October 1914.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The point of 1914 was that it was identified as the end of the period known scripturally as the 'Gentile Times', interpreted by Russell as a period of 'Gentile domination'. This lead him to the conclusion (evidently erroneously) that 1914 would usher in Armageddon. So the Bible Students did mark 1914 as the year of Armageddon, but not always explicitly. Some of the references to it were more guarded. The New York World of Aug. 30 1914 had a more charitable view of the remarkable nature of this 'prophecy'. It stated (just googled it) that 

"The terrific war outbreak in Europe has fulfilled an extraordinary prophecy. For a quarter of a century past, through preachers and through press, the ‘International Bible Students’ [as Jehovah’s Witnesses were then known] . . . have been proclaiming to the world that the Day of Wrath prophesied in the Bible would dawn in 1914."

It is worth mentioning that the early months of the first world war were little different from previous wars, (notably the Franco-Prussian war of 1870) and that the nature of the conflict radically changed after the so-called race to the sea and the first battle of Ypres (Sept-Oct) leading to the buildup of forces and the greater horrors of 1915. That the year 1914 is attested and nominated as the end of an epoch is beyond doubt. Not only did 'wars and reports of wars' begin in 1914, but there was a series of notable earthquakes in the war years followed by the massive spnish flu. So what we could justifiably assert, is a date truly obtained from scriptural prophecies but not fully understood as to its precise significance. 1914 is an extraordinarily momentous year, and for the Bible Students to have pointed to it at all is remarkable and contrasts with other 'prophetic' years (even if the dating was a few weeks out, although as I have stated there is good reason to consider October as the real watershed. The early months of the war were like a prelude to the events post-Gentile Times, just as the beginnings of avant-garde art, Picasso and Fauvism, the nightmarish world of Mahler and Munch and early Kafka, presaged the greater 'decadence' of Dada, Schoenberg, and the roaring twenties atmosphere of sexual rebellion). Eusebius12 (talk) 14:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

As is indicated from the sensationalist quote from The World magazine, the 'prophecy' did not come true as predicted at all. 1914 did not 'usher in the Day of Wrath' (aka Armageddon). It was merely a sensationalist comment referring to a coincidence about the wrong event in the wrong month, in the 'right' year. A statement in an August newspaper clearly doesn't ratify anything that was alleged to happen suddenly in October.
The claim that "there was a series of notable earthquakes in the war years" is also misleading. There was no increase in the frequency or magnitude of notable earthquakes in 1914 or the years that immediately followed - see List of 20th century earthquakes. Additionally, it is better methods of detection, measurement and recording that account for more recent 'increases'.
The fact is, when enough groups guess that 'something' will happen at enough different times, eventually at least one group will inevitably be close to 'something' happening, especially when the event is retroactively reinterpreted. It is entirely implausible that any reference to 1914 was correctly established from so-called 'Bible prophecy' because the starting point of the alleged period culminating at 1914 can be readily disproved, with support from the Bible itself, but that goes beyond the scope of this page.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I see that the 'World' reference is mentioned above. As per the dismissing of the revival of the League prediction, I think that Jeffro is splitting hairs on that. The fact is, that the League in 1939 was effectively defunct, comatose, and universally perceived as a practical failure. That it would be revived was no certainty and no widely publically canvassed fait accompli. It is also reasonable to assert that the UN was a cover version of the League, ie the League in all but name. I have never read that any authority has pointed to any significant substantive difference between the League and the UN, other than membership (and most of that due to the breakup of various colonial empires, although undoubtedly the UN established more cred via the inclusion of the USSR and the US) Eusebius12 (talk) 15:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

It may be reasonable to assert any number of things. It was not a secret that something like the United Nations would form. The Atlantic Charter that ultimately led to the United Nations was officially signed in January 1942, and the specific term "United Nations" was announced at that time, several months before any 'prediction' by Knorr. Anyone with access to available media at the time who was paying close attention to world events could have known.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you're retconning history there. The so-called 'Atlantic Charter' as far as I can determine does not propose the development of a UN type organization although that might be an outcome of its 'wishlist' (but it is not implicit in the agreement, no international body is mentioned as far as I am aware). Also the term 'United Nations' was applied to the Allied Nations, for whom victory in the War was not certain in Sept 1942. The German defeat at Stalingrad was still a few months away. According to the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_Nations the idea for the UN didn't begin to crystallize, even in embryo form until late 1943. Although if you think the articles pertaining to this are incomplete, it would be nice if you could add some referenced additions to them. Also as I have pointed out, JWs don't claim to 'predict' events, merely to interpret scripture (guided by Holy Spirit) which we believe foretells future events. That might seem nitpicky, but there is a significant distinction between the 2 positions. Eusebius12 (talk) 13:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Failed Predictions/False Prophet Accusation against Jehovah's Witnesses

The Failed Predications subheading on the Jehovah's Witness page has been debated for months. It presents a strong viewpoint which in the viewpoint of this editor is not backed up Wikipedia-worthy sources, according to this editor. This editor also feels that the argument claiming Jehovah's Witnesses to be a false prophet presents Original Research, and is mainly a Synthesis of ideas from Watchtower literature which was not written to make the point that the current editors of Wikipedia are making. Additionally, the argument misrepresents statements from Jehovah's Witnesses literature and uses outdated sources from 1959 and 1972 to prove its point, and yet presents the material as current. Editors on Wikipedia have been successfully blocking any efforts to modify the article so that it reflects a NPOV on this and some other points, which the article currently does not. One of the editors has a strong and open anti-Jehovah's Witness bias, which is reflected in his editing style.Natural (talk) 16:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

Can you elaborate on your claim that editors "have been successfully blocking any efforts to modify the article so that it reflects a NPOV"? Who has been blocked and how was this done?
The "prophecy" issue was raised at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 51#False Prophet and again at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 52#Sources used to support that Jehovah's Witnesses claim to be a prophet. It was discussed at length. User:Naturalpsychology has also argued several times in the past in support of his personal belief that magazines beyond a certain arbitrary (but unstated) date are outdated and shouldn't be cited. The problem is that WTS publications and talks frequently refer to older magazines and Witnesses are encouraged to maintain a library of older publications which they are urged to use. His latest specious argument is that because members of the Governing Body who were alive at the time of some writings are now dead, those statements are now invalid.[3]. Neither argument invalidates the specific points raised in WTS publications that God has appointed Jehovah's Witnesses as his prophet to warn people of things to come and equips them with special knowledge with which to do so. BlackCab (talk) 22:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Jehovah's Witnesses, the Governing Body, the anointed, most definitely do not equate themselves with "Old Testament prophets," as Wikipedia claims. That is a false interpretation of two older Watchtower articles. The Old Testament prophets of the Bible 1). performed miracles 2). spoke under direct inspiration by God 2 Tim 3:16,17 - The Watchtower has repeatedly stated, as did C.T. Russell that they were and are, not inspired by God in the same way as the Bible writers, the "Old Testament prophets". Wikipedia is misleading the public with this information.
March 1, 1979 watchtower par. 15 To Whom Shall We Go but Jesus Christ?
Because of this hope, the “faithful and discreet slave” has alerted all of God’s people to the sign of the times indicating the nearness of God’s Kingdom rule. In this regard, however, it must be observed that this “faithful and discreet slave” was never inspired, never perfect. Those writings by certain members of the “slave” class that came to form the Christian part of God’s Word were inspired and infallible [the bible], but that is not true of other writings since.Natural (talk) 10:31, 12 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

RfC comment - Penton and others have documented fairly well that there have been predictions made in the past which have, apparently, not proven accurate. If I remember correctly, he even indicated in Apocalypse Delayed that Frederick Franz in a speech in Hawaii (in 1975 I think?) blamed the assembled JW's for the world not ending in 1974, saying that their belief that it would happen caused Matthew 24:36 here to be relevant and to prevent it happening. I have to say that the matter is certainly sufficiently important to be addressed in the article. However, I would question inclusion of material regarding "false prophet" claims. It seems to me that most of those accusations might be made by other Christians to discredit the JWs, and that the phrase might not be used much outside of those biased discussions. If that is the case, then using that phrase might be giving a bit too much weight to the opinions of opponents for a central article like this one. Perhaps a sentence or two about how others have called them "false prophets" might be in line, and possibly more from individuals who left the JWs on the basis of those "false prophecies", but we would want to ensure that the phrase not be given too much weight. Discussing the claims made, and how they did not come to pass, would to my eyes be sufficient. John Carter (talk) 19:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

  • comment All of the relevant scholarly works from Beckford and Holden to Penton treat the subject of failed prophecy - of course it will have to be treated here as well.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree that the subject of failed prophecies/predictions must be covered. This is mentioned in one way or another by most of the references I have read, and as Wikipedia is about summarizing the literature, it shouldn't be blazing new ground by omitting this prominent piece of the story. Beit-Halahmi mentions several failed predictions from Russell and onward in his article (Beit-Halahmi, Benjamin. 1993. The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Active New Religions, Sects, and Cults. New York: Rosen Publishing Group, p. 193. ISBN 978-0-8239-2586-5), while Melton's encyclopedia only mentions the failure of the 1914/1918 prediction (Melton, J. Gordon. 2003. Encyclopedia of American Religions. Seventh Edition. Farmington Hills, Michigan: The Gale Group, Inc., p. 123. ISBN 0-7876-6384-0). Neusner uses the words "failed prophecies" in his description (Neusner, Jacob. 2009. World Religions in America: An Introduction. Fourth Edition. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press. pp. 242, 243. ISBN 978-0-664-23320-4), among many similar references. Some sort of explanation(s) of the rationalization for those failures would also be in order, and may be found in 3rd-party sources – these incidents are used in several texts to illustrate the use of denial to explain failure of predictions in works such as Ralph W. Hood, Peter C. Hill, Bernard Spilka, eds. 2009. The Psychology of Religion: An Empirical Approach. Fourth Edition. New York, NY: The Guilford Press, p. 225. ISBN 978-1-60623-303-0; Weddle, David L. "Jehovah's Witnesses" in Eugene V. Gallagher, W. Michael Ashcraft, eds. Introduction to New and Alternative Religions in America, vol. 2. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group, pp. 81–82. ISBN 0-275-98714-2 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum; Stone, Jon R. 2000. Expecting Armageddon: Essential Readings in Failed Prophecy. New York, New, York: Routledge, pp. 16, 27fn, 242. ISBN 0415923301; Aldridge, Alan E. 2007. Religion in the Contemporary World: A Sociological Introduction, Second Edition. Cambridge, England: Polity Press, pp. 123–126. ISBN 978-07456-3404-3; or other of the sociological sources out there. I agree also that the term "false prophet" would best be avoided unless it is used more in 3rd-party references than I can find. • Astynax talk 22:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: Sourcing is key here. Cover it, but cover it as it is covered in secondary sources (preferably scholarly sources) and cite the secondary sources. Mining primary sources (i.e. JW publications) for failed predictions is inappropriate. If secondary sources quote specific JW publications making predictions that did not come true, the original JW publications (primary sources) may be quoted by us as well and can be given as an ancillary citation, in addition to the secondary source citation. But we should not be quoting JW publications that have never attracted the attention of secondary sources, as that is original research. See WP:PSTS and WP:NRMMOS. Presently the great majority of citations in this section is to the Watchtower, i.e. a primary source. --JN466 22:56, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment As per JN's comment. This has attracted plenty of research and commentary, so it should not be difficult to avoid original research. Where the secondary sources quote JW publications, it would be fair to cite the quoted publications as a primary source. It would be reasonable to also cite any official JW position on the prophecies or their failure. As to a "false prophets" conclusion, the article should specify according to whom(I would include "according to the Bible" in that). It is also relevant whether JW's officially still recognise these as prophets. LowKey (talk) 00:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Response: There is no "mining" of JW publications to find failed predictions in the section in question. The section actually mentions no specific predictions. The section is worded to establish that (a) the Witnesses do see themselves as a prophet "class" appointed by God (See "They Shall Know that a Prophet Was Among Them", WT, April 1, 1972, which is cited in the article); (b) they have made certain predictions about things based on their interpretation of the Bible; and (c) they have been criticized for the failure of those predictions. James Beverley, cited in the article, accuses them of false prophecy and writers including Beckford, Rogerson and Penton refer to failed predictions or failed prophecies. WTS publications acknowledge the accusation. Reasoning From the Scriptures (their doorstep book for answering householders' questions) on pg 137 suggests a reply when they face that accusation and an Awake article (March 22, 1993, also cited) states the accusation and then denies it. Perhaps it would be better to delete the first two or three sentences in the "Failed predictions" section and lead off with the specific accusations of false prophecy, but I think those sentences help to establish why they issue those predictions. User:Naturalpsychology accuses me of synthesizing the accusation of false prophecy and framing it with original research, which is clearly wrong. As already stated, he claims the clear, unequivocal statement in the April 1, 1972 Watchtower that Witnesses are today's divine prophet is invalid because he thinks the magazine is old. He has also claimed the article is invalid because its writers are now probably dead. That suggestion alone would probably warrant the charge of apostasy within his religion. I will add the Beckford reference to the article, but I doubt that yet another source will alter his belief that such accusations are the invention of malevolent Wikipedia editors.BlackCab (talk) 03:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
    • The point is, whether the statement in the 1972 Watchtower for example, or any other statement made in a JW publication, is relevant and notable enough to include in this article is a decision that should be made by secondary sources, which have amply covered this area, rather than by any individual Wikipedian. What we need to do is to summarise secondary-source coverage. Secondary sources may provide the same, equivalent or better examples from JW literature. Citing a statement like "Jehovah's Witnesses' publications have made various predictions about world events they believe were prophesied in the Bible.[293][294]" to two Watchtower publications is not appropriate. I propose you and your fellow editors look into the books posted by Astynax, above. If you find they don't have a preview in google books or amazon, I have three or four of them on my bookshelf and can provide quotes. (If any editor needs help on how to view a book's pages in amazon or google books, please ask.) --JN466 13:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Beverley does refer to the 1972 WT and their 1968 condemnation of false prophets in a 1968 Awake. I can reword the section if necessary. Quotes from other sources not currently cited would be appreciated. BlackCab (talk) 21:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
The 1972 and 1959 articles refer to Jehovah's Witnesses as a prophet, only with respect to their public preaching work. It does not use the term in the way it was used of the prophets of the Old Testament.
Additionally, God has equipped Jehovah's Witnesses with advanced knowledge through the Bible, not through their modern day prophecies. Later Day Saints claim they have modern day prophecies, but Jehovah's Witnesses don't make that claim. There is a big difference and Wikipedia needs to make that clear if it is going to talk about prophecies by Jehovah's Witnesses. Jehovah's Witnesses don't claim to make any new prophecies, they claim to shed light on the prophecies that have already been written in the Bible.

Natural (talk) 23:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

Your argument about the 1972 WT article is quite false. The entire thrust of it was about God using a prophet class to warn the world of something that is yet to come. The constant comparisons with JWs and OT prophets had nothing to do with them preaching. It was about their being chosen by God to warn of calamitous events that were about to occur. Your claim that JWs don't originate prophecies or predictions is a matter of debate. If they alone determine that the United Nations is about to overthrow religion and that the JWs will come under violent attack, which will then trigger Armageddon and mass human destruction based on certain chronological calculations, then that is an interpretation of scripture. It is not a Biblical "prophecy". BlackCab (talk) 00:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

RfC comment - You mean the world did not end in 1974? I am glad someone noticed that. Nobody likes hearing about past predictions that did not fly, specially if they made the predictions. Was it Yogi Berra who said: "Predictions are hard -- especially about the future"? But seriously, they seem to have made predictions and then it would be natural to try to get selective amnesia on it, like many people who predict elections, stock market trends, etc. However, as with market analysts, it would be essential to reflect their track record here. It would be relevant and there seem to be good sources for it. History2007 (talk) 01:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Sources, per Astynax above:

  • The 8th Edition of Melton's Encyclopedia of American Religion (Gale 2009) says nothing about failed prophecies. (I don't have the 7th Edition to hand.)
  • Neusner p. 242-243
  • Beit-Hallahmi (p. 193) says, "In 1886 Russell revealed his timetable for the millennium. According to this plan, the Harvest period or the "millenial [sic] dawn period"(1874-1914) would end with the "battle of Armageddon", the establishment of God's direct rule on Earth, and the restoration of mankind to perfection. During the millenial [sic] dawn period the Jews would return to Palestine and gentile governments would be overthrown. The coming of World War I in 1914 was considered a confirmation of the prophecies; but as God's direct rule on Earth did not start, the date was revised to 1918. Russell died in 1916. Witnesses claim, however, that in 1914 Jesus Christ did indeed start a period of "invisible rule" on earth. Joseph Franklin Rutherford [...] kept annoucing [sic] dates for the end of the world, first 1920, then 1925, and then 1940. [...] In 1969 Nathan Homer Knorr (1905-1977), Rutherford's successor [...] stated that the Millennium of Christ's reign on Earth would start in 1975. Later, the date of October 2, 1984, was proclaimed. Witnesses believed that the End would come before the generation who saw the events of 1914 passed away. [...] In 1995 specific references to timetables were discouraged for the first time."
  • Gallagher/Ashcraft p. 81-82
  • Hood et al. p. 225
  • Stone
  • Aldridge p.123ff

This is a useful tool for generating a properly formatted ref template from a google books URL. Just paste the google books URL in, and the tool does the rest. --JN466 02:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Valuable references. Many thanks. BlackCab (talk) 07:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Not to detract from the interesting book mentioned above, 1975 was not Knorr's baby, but Fred Franz's.
In 1969 Nathan Homer Knorr (1905-1977), Rutherford's successor [...] stated that the Millennium of Christ's reign on Earth would start in 1975.
Have never heard or read a quote of Knorr talking about 1975. (although maybe there is something out thereNatural (talk) 17:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)Natural
Needs to be covered when made from the highest level of JW and properly sourced. The term "false prophet" sounds pov, even if in the source, and should, most probably not be used. "Inaccurate" or a similar word, or even no word. We don't really need to point out that the world still exists!  :) Student7 (talk) 21:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
The accusation of "false prophet" is a fairly specific one, and one to which the Watch Tower Society has specifically responded. It therefore seems appropriate to indicate that specific term.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:16,

14 September 2010 (UTC)

The Watchtower doesn't accuse itself of being a false prophet, and also, there doesn't seem to be any reliable/verifiable resources with that statement. It might be found on evangelical sites of the type of preachers that sympathize with burning the Koran, but not a direct accusation on serious sites or books, as far as it can be seen at the present. If it were to be mentioned with a Watchtower reference, like the Reasoning on the Scriptures, it would need to be in the context with which it is written, and not in an attempt to accuse JW of being a false prophet.Natural (talk) 20:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

I suppose analogous to this might be to suggest that we add sections to the LDS article saying 'are Mormons racist polygamist Indian killers' or 'are Catholics pedophile torturers' or 'are Muslims fanatical terrorists'. It is pejorative. I don't have a problem with this subject being addressed on the main page, but with a less pejorative flavour in the way it is described. I think its worth mentioning that the JW concept of prophet has nothing to do with being a crystal ball gazer, ie exclusively or even primarily a seer of future events, but as God's spokesman and representative. Also the WT has never claimed to be inspired, that it delivers the actual inspired word of God (independent of the Bible; ie its only inspired content is direct quotations of the Bible), merely an interpretation of the scriptures (although this is intended and believed to be a correct interpretation) and that the time predictions are not divine messages exclusive of the scriptures, but contained (explicity or implicitly) therein and explained by the Faithful Slave class (cf Matt 24:45). The whole concept of JWs as 'prophets' in the sense of being predictors of future events either through direct revelation or other means other than interpretation of scriptural texts, or members being prophets (the current etymology, if used, would be to describe the anointed class as 'the prophet') is erroneous. Eusebius12 (talk) 15:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The point is not whether 'JWs say they are prophets (in the sense of prediction)', but that such a criticism has been made in notable sources. The article cites the material from Watch Tower Society publications on which the critics base their claims, and then presents the claims made by the critics. The fact that the Watch Tower Society has responded to claims that JWs are false prophets indicates that such claims are notable. We aren't here to tell the critics that their criticism is right, wrong or other.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm curious about what wording Eusebius regards as "pejorative". The "Failed predictions" section clearly states that Franz and Beverley are the critics making the claim, and also clearly states that Witness publications "have made various predictions about world events they believe were prophesied in the Bible". Those predictions obviously include Rutherford's expectation of resurrections in 1925. Readers can decide for themselves whether that one was an originated prophecy or an event he believed was prophesied in scripture. But certainly many predictions were expressed as "beyond doubt", yet failed. Given that the Witnesses have claimed theirs is a "prophet organization" with a message that "must come true" (see ref 277 in the article) and continues to make claims about what they say lies immediately before us, it is not surprising they attract criticism for failed predictions of the past, and that criticism is sufficiently notable to be included in that very brief section. BlackCab (talk) 09:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok. False prophet is pejorative, failed predictions is not particularly, in my view. There are many notable pejorative claims made regarding various groups, as I said, which do not make various wikipedia articles. Nevertheless I am not arguing that something along these lines cannot be briefly addressed in the article, however 'false prophets' is pejorative and smacks of certain fundamentalist websites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eusebius12 (talk • contribs) 13:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Redundant references

This article contain too much references. I found in many places that to establish a single point almost 5 or more references are given. I intend to replace them with single strong references if possible. It could significantly reduce the article size and thus can avoid omission of important sections in the name of wiki page size policy.  Logical Thinker  17:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Simpler is always better -a good (logical) idea. Natural (talk) 19:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)Natural
The problem arose through argumentive Jehovah's Witnesses who kept denying the validity of certain statements. It was a dopey response, I guess, but I think many of those references were added to provide a convincing argument by sheer weight of numbers. I agree that many simple statements are supported by too many sources. You'll need to be careful about what you keep and delete, or it will start the cycle again. BlackCab (talk) 20:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I have deleted redundant references in several sections up to "Life after death". In some cases I've left statements supported by a bunch of sources, particularly where the statement might be disputed (as in "Jehovah's Witnesses teach that only they meet scriptural requirements for surviving Armageddon, although God is the final judge") and also where a non-WTS source makes the statement as well; in those cases it is sometimes helpful to have that source (Penton, for example) and also an example of a WTS source making the same point. There is also a stack of references supporting the statement "Watch Tower publications emphasize the need for members to be obedient and loyal to Jehovah and to "his organization". In that case a similar point is made by two sources, Franz and Holden, but a list of WT references cited by Franz is also included. These allow readers to consult the original source material and weigh up the facts, but also support his claim that the appeal for obedience is frequently stressed. I'll return to the task at some point soon.
I think we all agree on the need not to oversource statements; the problem arises when other editors sometimes challenge the statements, suggesting that certain WT references are not representative of the published view. In those contentious cases an additional reference or two might help to settle the issue. BlackCab (talk) 12:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I too agree with you. By the way I would take a close look at those references in future. The article is now having good quality and balance in my opinion. If some cleanup is done in references it could be considered for featured article--  Logical Thinker  11:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Removed statements unrelated to source of doctrine

I removed the above statements under Source of doctrine because,

  • It is unrelated to the section source of doctrine and redundant.
  • The removed statements are already well explained as shown below in the last paragraph of Organization section.


I also added directly related statement by an impartial observer professor BeDuhn just before the statements on Sociologist Andrew Holden's negative comment. In his book on accuracy of bible translations BeDuhn explains his finding on how Jehovah's Witnesses derive their doctrines from Bible. Its is found here at page. 165. I included it because BeDuhn is not from WatchTower Society nor a person like Franz or penton. He is a reputed scholar who is well known and respected. His book on truth in translation is rated high [http://www.amazon.com/review/R3E9J7CCXLY4W9/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt#R3E9J7CCXLY4W9 in amazon]. Hence his view is a reliable third party source--  Logical Thinker  16:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

You have a point there. Although Franz may be considered as a "third-party" source, he isn't really, because he used to be part of the Watchtower society, and he now has an obvious bias against Jehovah's Witnesses. Beeshoney (talk) 18:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
The merit of that comment at that point is debatable. One moment BeDuhn talks about the Witnesses (really referring to Russell's first set of doctrines, which "sought to reinvent Christianity from scratch") in which they approached the Bible without predetermining what was found there; in his next breath he notes bias in the New World Translation, where accuracy was "impaired by the commitments of the translators". In other words, they translated the Bible with the intent of it reflecting their pre-existing doctrines. Since BeDuhn's study is of the Bible translation, it seems a touch desperate to include his passing reference to the Witnesses' "system of belief and practice" (which he neither examines anywhere or elaborates on) as a point of compliment about the entire list of doctrines listed in this Wikipedia article. BlackCab (talk) 21:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia is place of reliable sources as you always mention. If you have any debate with the author of the book, I am sorry this is not the place. BeDuhn wrote impartially, that's why he wrote about both the aspects unlike ray franz or penton. The term "impaired by the commitments of the translators" is related to NW translation not about how JW's derived their teachings. He uses that term in the sense, the translators are committed to translate the bible as accurate as possible. But,He concludes NW was the "most accurate" and "much better". He was not a JW's. BeDuhn also states that people always tend to criticize JW's because often NW renders differant from other bibles, adding that its often not because of biasing, but the NW translators stayed close with original meaning of the text. He is a religious scholar and wrote many books related theology of various religions. His CV testifies it. So the statement that Beduhn wrote it without analyzing JW's doctrine and bible is having no ground. --  Logical Thinker  03:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I have no issue with the source. I am questioning the inclusion of a quote from it at this point in the article because it is probably not relevant. BeDuhn's reference to the Witnesses' "system of belief and practice" appears to be a passing, offhand comment that could, in the context, refer to nothing more than the patchwork of CT Russell's original viewpoints on the return of Christ as opposed to orthodox protestantism, since he talks about the religion's "reinvention" of Christianity. It is difficult to tell, because BeDuhn neither discusses not examines Witness beliefs and practices. They are not the subject of his book and he gives no further explanation of his point. It is rather like a theatre critic stating in his review that it was astonishing that the actors were so poorly prepared and the publicist subsequently advertising the play with the word "astonishing", and attributing it to the critic. Citing sources in Wikipedia demands a little more intelligence than googling a phrase and inserting an apparently favorable use of it. Judging by your amusing attempt to rationalise BeDuhn's criticism of the bias found in the NWT, that task may be beyond you. BlackCab (talk) 07:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I found not by googling it, I found the quote from another source. You say that BeDuhn used Jehovah's Witnesses example to emphasize how reformation helped in translation of bible without biasing it with traditional teachings. However it was more than that, BehDuhn testifies that. From his statement
I haven't seen any wiki policy that states that references should only from a dedicated book on the topic. His research is on bias in bible influenced by theology of Christian denominations. It's odd to believe that he made it without first studying the theology of those Christians . His book thus explains how the source of Doctrine(Bible) is biased in favor of christian teachings. However he testifies that JW's follow a different policy in deriving their teachings. He endorses that JW's (he calls sect) derived their teaching from the bible(source of Doctrine) without allowing influence of traditional teachings. It is not the matter whether he supports the practices or beliefs, but its important that he testifies the JW's make their doctrines strictly from bible without considering traditional view. I am wondering why you make so much shouting for a source which is strictly neutral. On the other hand you quote from all the critical books --  Logical Thinker  10:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Your claim that JWs are simply "biased in favor of Christian teachings" is a circular reference, because you are defining their own interpretations as the Christian teachings toward which they are biased.
But back to BeDuhn, he also says "The inconsistency of NW translators in not using "Jehovah" in 2 Thessalonians 1:9, 1 Peter 2:3, and 1 Peter 3:15 shows that interpretation rather than a principle of translation is involved in deciding where to use "Jehovah."" (page 175). BeDuhn's other statement you cited is therefore a generalisation and not his overall view, and is therefore misleading in the doctrine section.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I did'nt mean JW's are biased in favor of Christian teachings. I mean BeDuhn studied biasing possible scriptures(in favor of religious theology) in all the 9 major bibles. It doesn't matter what he did or what he say about the translation(Though he concludes NW is most accurate). What's important here is his statement on JW's methodology in deriving their teachings from the Source of doctrine (bible). He studied the theology of JW's(as a part of analyzing bias in NW bible), otherwise a scholar like him won't merely say a confident statement(he used the sentence "Whether you regard that good or bad thing,") about a controversial religion. --  Logical Thinker  13:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Contrary comments on Witnesses' formation of doctrines

BeDuhn makes a passing reference (of dubious relevance) to the "system of beliefs and practice" developed by the Witnesses and his comment is included in this article. Here now are several statements that address themselves explicitly to the foundations of JW doctrine. All take a strongly contrasting view to that of BeDuhn. Our task now is to represent those views in a manner that indicates the weight of opinion.

1. Professor James Beverley (Crisis of Allegiance) devotes four pages to what he calls the "myth of doctrinal purity" about Witness doctrines. Among his claims (p.91-94):

  • "Crucial beliefs are often based on poor exegesis, sloppy reasoning and careless historical investigation."
  • "Witnesses fail to realize that much of their teaching has no direct biblical support. The Society is dogmatic on issues where Scripture does not speak clearly."
  • "The drastic changes in the Society's own teachings on the heavenly and earthly class over 100 years suggest more than anything that the roots of the concept lie in the traditions of men, not the Word of God."
  • "Where does the Bible plainly teach that each creative day is 7000 years in length?"
  • "Why is the number 144,000 held to be a literal figure when everything else said about this group is interpreted figuratively?"
  • "Nowhere is evidence for a doctrinal position weaker than on their absolutely foundational teaching that Jesus returned invisibly in 1914."
  • "Few Witnesses realize that there is no hard evidence for the 607BC date for the overthrow of the Southern Kingdom. Virtually all scholars place that event in 587 or 586BC."
  • "The seventh volume of Studies in the Scriptures, published in 1917, offers 88 proofs that Jesus returned invisibly in 1874."
  • "The Watch Tower position on these and other issues is usually advanced by leading questions, name-calling and construction of 'straw-man' arguments for opposing views."
  • "There is no great case for tremendous scholarship in the publications of Jehovah's Witnesses. How many academics or experts in different disciplines use Society material as a source of insight, careful exegesis and profound theological reflection?"
  • "There is something curious about constant use (in WT literature) of academics who have yet to see the basic light on the Society being the sole channel of truth and 'the only organization on earth that understands the deep things of God'."

2. Anthony Hoekema, in The Four Major Cults, says:

  • "Jehovah's Witnesses thus clearly state their dependence on Scripture as their final source of authority. As we examine their theology, however, it will become quite evident that this is by no means a fair and honest statement. Instead of listening to Scripture and subjecting themselves wholly to its teachings, as they claim to do, they actually impose their own theological system upon Scripture and force it to comply with their beliefs." (p.238)
  • (The NWT) is a biased translation in which many of the peculiar teachings of the Watchtower Society are smuggled into the text of the Bible itself." (p.238)
  • "Their method of using scripture is to find passages which seem to support their views and to ignore passages which fail to provide such support." (p.242)
  • "The interpretation of scripture found in Jehovah's Witness literature is often characterized by absurd literalism ... at other times by absurd typology." (p.249-250)
  • "A third common characteristic of ... scripture study is what might be called 'knight-jump exegesis. Kurt Hutten ... has coined this expression to describe the way Witnesses jump from one part of the Bible to another, with utter disregard of context, to 'prove' their points." (p.251)

3. Alan Rogerson of Wolfson College, Oxford (Millions Now Living Will Never Die):

  • "As far as most theologians are concerned, the Witnesses are talking doctrinal rubbish." (p.85).
  • "The Witnesses have created their own criterion for belief, it involves the one basic assumption or premise: The Bible, from first to last, is the inspired word of God ... It will later become evident that in practice the ultimate criterion for them is the opinion of the governing body." (p.85-86)
  • "Despite their claims to hold the Bible as their criterion they will believe almost anything the Society wishes them to believe ... in effect they believe the Bible is not enough, it is necessary to obey the edicts of God's organization on earth - the Society. The Society can create plausible Biblical reasons for believing most things and when they decide to change their minds they can look up another set of reasons to justify their new position ... any claim they make to examine the Bible without bias is merely for the benefit of outsiders. The ultimate source of authority for Jehovah's Witnesses is not the Bible but the Society." (p.121-122)

So to restate the question: if we are happy to include in the article a vague, passing reference by BeDuhn in a study that doesn't examine Witness doctrines or beliefs, what is the best way to represent this strongly stated view that directly contradicts him? BlackCab (talk) 13:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I stated that BeDuhn was an impartial writer, but its clear those described above are not so. They have criticized JW's throughout their writings(shows their animosity towards JW's). See published by reliable sources and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Articles should be based on reliable, third-party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; BeDuhn on the other hand kept a balance, though he criticized NW he concluded that, JW's followed a different way. His arguments can thus be considered honest and reliable. Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation, publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. None of the writers stated above are notable and not yet deserved a biography in Wikipedia. On the other hand, I am not Struggling here to keep BeDuhn's arguments neither I have a long time for a debate. To clarify theological debates an article Jehovah's Witnesses teachings and Scriptural interpretations would be needed. --  Logical Thinker  14:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, that won't work. All three works are heavily used as authoritative sources by other scholarly works on the Witnesses and other religions. They certainly meet Wikipedia standards of reliable pubished sources. I'm proposing a sentence that would somehow encapsulate their view. BlackCab (talk) 20:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Logicalthinker33, 'reliable' sources are not simply those sources that you agree with. It is unclear on what basis you claim that the three writers cited above have "a poor reputation" or are "widely acknowledged as" 'bad'. Notability for a Wikipedia article about an author isn't the benchmark for a reliable source.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Given the clear fact that a predominance of reliable sources so far located present a strongly critical view of the method of doctrinal development, it's unreasonable to retain BeDuhn's passing comment, which appears to be unsubstantiated with any elaboration or explanation in his book. I'll remove it. A single sentence noting the collective view of those authors is worth including, and further detail can be added at Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses. BlackCab (talk) 23:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
OK on removal. I understand BeDuhn's statement would make that section unbalanced. But, You said, "A single sentence noting the collective view of those authors is worth including". I won't support it because it would be out of scope making that section a place of debate. The section explains what is the source of doctrine(answer is bible and GB), and not on comments and criticism by other writers. A single sentence like "Some writers appreciate JW's way of interpretations, and others Strongly criticize" or "Writer X say this, while writer Y say that" is of no point because support and criticism is universally true in the case of any religious doctrine.--  Logical Thinker  14:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Outdated publications and misinterpretation and interpolation beyond what the 1972 and 1959 Watchtower stated

It seems that after the discussion on the NPOV board, LTSally or one of the other editors actually added to the rhetoric rather than edit it accurately.

Taking two outdated articles from 1959 and 1972 and to state that JW claim to be prophets along the same lines as the Old Testament prophets is a misinterpretation and an interpolation beyond what is stated in either of those articles.

This is the Wikipedia sentence that needs to be deleted:

Publications have also claimed God uses Witnesses as a modern-day prophet, warning about what is to come in a similar manner to Old Testament prophets.[292][293]

Again, to save time, if the sentenece isn't deleted or edited in a way that reflects the true intent of the articles, then I'll have to repost to the NPOV or appeal higher.

Additionally, because the articles are from 1972 and before and because there are no living members of the Governing Body of JW from that time, and also because there have been many refinements in doctrine since that time, those articles shouldn't be used. If they are used, they need to be dated in the Wikipedia article itself so that persons can see that this is a historical accusation raised by Wikipedia editors and not a current teaching of JW. Natural (talk) 22:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

You have raised the issue repeatedly in diverse forums and convinced no one. I'm not sure which higher authority you now intend appealing to, but in the context of a religion that constantly refers back to its earlier writings, and indeed expects that all Witnesses maintain libraries of older publications, it is ludicrous that you alone decide what points in earlier magazines are "outdated" and demand that they be erased from encyclopedia articles. The statements are fully sourced and accurate. BlackCab (talk) 12:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Natural, your premise for determining which JW literature is outdated is slightly flawed. The Bible is pretty old, and the NWT (which has various significant differences to many other translations) has not changed substantially since it was published in the '60s, but it is not considered 'outdated'. Additionally, to my knowledge, there has been no statement from the Watch Tower Society that the doctrinal positions of non-current Governing Body members are intrinsically and automatically defunct. Unless more-recent articles have reversed the specific position stated in an older article (rather than simply not saying, or being more ambiguous), it is not sufficient to discount older publications simply on the basis that there have been 'many' (unspecified) changes. The quoted statement does accurately reflect the content of the cited 1972 article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Rather than dispute these matters further, I posted an inquiry on the Christian religion editors board and receive a response advising me on how to go about mediation in these disputes. I was advised to post on WP:RFC, ethnic and religious conflicts noticeboard at WP:ECCN. That is what I will do today. Thank you.Natural (talk) 15:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)Natural
As some claim to be experts on JW publications, you should be aware that major doctrine of JWs is repeatedly written about in their current publications. JWs are not expected or demanded to keep back libraries of literature. That is their personal choice. Since you say that this is a doctrine still taught today by Witnesses, then there should be numerous references in their current literature, as most JWs were not even alive in 1972, let alone 1959. I am also an expert in JW publications, as I have studied them for over 30 years. I have never in that time read any claim that JWs were prophets, nor have I ever heard a JW make that claim, nor have I even imagined it or believed it myself as an official member of the religion. The bible doesn't need to be changed, but our understanding of it does as we learn more about it. And that is OK, because only a fool thinks he knows everything there is to know about the bible. Sure that statement was made some 40 years ago once in the Watchtower. But there's no reason to retract it since 95% of JWs alive today have not even read or heard about that article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.14.1 (talk) 00:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
So your objection has shifted again. This time you are arguing:
(1)"I have never heard of that, so it can't be true"; and
(2) Even if the WTS doctrine has changed, there is no need to retract it, because most people have either forgotten about it or are ignorant of it anyway. BlackCab (talk) 00:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Having a personal library of JW publications is specifically recommended by the Watch Tower Society. "Why is a home library necessary? ... But it is unlikely that we will take full advantage of this invaluable information if we do not organize a personal theocratic library. How can that be done? The first step, of course, is to obtain the books such a library needs. It is well worth the effort, since it will enable us to have at our fingertips the precise information we need to handle problems and answer Bible questions. ... Most of the publications printed by the Society during the last 20 years are still available. If you have come into the truth recently, it would be worthwhile for you to obtain all such works that are available in your language." (The Watchtower 1 November 1994, p. 28-29 "How to Organize a Theocratic Library") Additionally, every issue of The Watchtower back to 1950 is available to all JWs on the Watchtower Library CD-ROM.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Having a personal library is beneficial, but not required. One benefit of having one is so we don't take one statement in one magazine out of context, such as has been done in this article. Chances are, someone with 40 years worth of literature hasn't read every word of it, which would be needed to find the quote you use to support your illegitimate claim that Witnesses think they are prophets. That would only be found by people who devote their lives to finding single sentences in old Watchtowers so they can make false claims about Witness beliefs. Those individuals would of course be biased, which is in direct conflict with this article's policies, as stated in the header of this page. These individuals also make a point of quoting books by ex-Witnesses who have also devoted thier lives to bashing Witnesses. I think I see the bias here. I am also biased. Therefore I do not contribute to the main article. I merely question other biased contributers who do.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.14.91 (talk) 03:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I never claimed that "Witnesses think they are prophets." The rest of what you've said is just a rant, including misguided claims that other editors 'devote their lives' to anything in particular.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I believe Black Cab has expressly stated exactly that on his wiki page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.59.23.172 (talk) 01:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
What BlackCab puts on his User page is beyond my control, and is not relevant to the anonymous editor's response to me. Additionally, the previous anonymous editor claimed that "a personal library is [according to the Watch Tower Society] beneficial, but not required". However, the source cited earlier indicates that having a "home library" is "necessary".--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure what it is that the anonymous user is claiming I have said on my user page. That user might also note that the article does not claim that WTS literature regards Jehovah's Witnesses, individually, as prophets. The literature has, however, made the quite pointed statement (as contained in the cited sources) that they collectively are a prophet "class", one of many "classes" this religion manages to see in scripture. Some publications simply refer to active members as a group as a prophet supposedly granted "special knowledge" about what is to come. That's a big claim, expounded in study articles of the Watchtower, and I'm sure that if they later decided it was untrue, they would have said so. BlackCab (talk) 07:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Needed Proper citation in statements related to 1928

The given referance "Rogerson, Alan (1969). Millions Now Living Will Never Die: A Study of Jehovah's Witnesses. Constable & Co, London. p. 39. ISBN 09-455940-6." is found here(page 39). It does not state anything about 75 percent reduction or various bible student groups.

Further it contradicts the below statements. Proper citation is needed, Otherwise it should be removed.

From WT publications,




 Logical Thinker  13:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I've seen sources for the statement before, but it clearly isn't on the page cited. The intended meaning is that of the followers under Russell's presidency, 75% of those had left by 1928 under Rutherford's leadership. This is not directly comparable with statistics about new members since then, or with those who left after 1925, so it doesn't actually contradict those other statements; however, it is misleading and therefore should not be used without proper clarification.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Page 39 does mention the formation of various Bible Students groups, which it lists.
Page 43 states that by 1920, "Rutherford's following had fallen to about 4,000"
Page 52 states:
--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
I have clarified and corrected the wording, with the appropriate citations.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for finding that, Jeffro. Those citations had been in this article or another one but were later deleted by someone. It's also worth noting the Memorial attendance figures in the Divine Purpose history book of 1959: it shows that the numbers plummeted 80 per cent from from 90,434 in 1925 (see page 110) to 17,380 in 1928. (see pg. 312,313) By 1938 memorial attendance was back up to 69,345 and surpassed the 90,000 figure again only in 1940.
Small wonder that, as Rogerson notes (p.52), Rutherford ruminated over the fact that "only a few" of those who "left the world to follow Jesus Christ ...are now in God's organisation". (See Jehovah by J.F. Rutherford, 1934, page 277.[4].) In 1927, as Watch Tower followers were quitting in droves, Rutherford wrote about those who had "separated themselves from all organized forms of religion" and followed the WTS. "For a time they made progress; and then many became tired and weary in well doing or thought more highly of themselves than they should think (a phrase still used in WTS publications today about members who dare to express their own opinions and question the official line!) or became lawless, while others became offended. These turned away, so that today the larger percent of those who withdrew from so-called organized Christianity have turned aside and again gone back into the world." I'll add those citations to the article.
It's fascinating that both the Divine Purpose book and the Proclaimers book skips commenting on that period of their history, focusing only on their growth years. A similar spin doctoring of figures has been applied to the growth in numbers professing to be anointed. The WT (Feb 15, 2009) claimed "the number of anointed ones on the earth has decreased over the decades", ignoring the plain fact that year by year they are actually increasing by as much as 10 per cent. A decrease "over the decades" is achieved only by comparing today's figure with the number in the 1970s. BlackCab (talk) 08:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
It's also fascinating that there was 44,080 active members reporting in 1928 (according to Divine Purpose history book of 1959 page 312,313). Still memorial partakers on the same year is given as 17,380 from 88,544 in 1927(as per WT 55 issue). It's unbelievable that in one year such a big drop occurred, hence I think some error occurred in the calculation. I think 1928 memorial partakers of 17,000 is only of those took wine and not on all those who attended. From Rogerson's book page 53 "The figures available suggest that Rutherford's active following increased from about 8,000 in 1919 to 25,000 in 1932. Certainly Rutherford's main task during these thirteen years was 'cleansing' rather than 'expanding'." Also a 1933 convention in US was reported to having 25,000 attendance, similarly in Germany itself 10,000 by that time. The year book on 1928 or 1929 can clarify it, however I don't have it(would be available in any bethel library). Thanks for changing the wording appropriately since the fact is still unclear--  Logical Thinker  12:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
You may find this forum thread[5] interesting. It seems to answer the question and I doubt you'll find anything better. I've just had a look through some old Watchtowers and the information provided on the thread appears correct. The July 15 1927 WT (pages 218-220) provides a city-by-city total of attenders throughout the world; the 1928 WT provides none. The official figures provided for 1928 may have been under-reported, but the clear implication of Rutherford's writings was that followers were deserting them by the trainload. And the theory advanced by that person is that the figures remained UNreported until they showed significant gains in the '30s. Your theory that the 1928 figure accounts only for partakers doesn't appear too sound. The 1928 WT article on celebrating the Memorial made comments about partaking that were no different to those in 1927. There is no doctrinal reason why such a large number would not partake though they were attending. BlackCab (talk) 12:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Russell Quote on Armageddon

This quote in all likelihood does not come directly from the Watchtower but is quoting from another reference. What reference, please, is it quoting from?

In 1889, Russell taught that "the 'battle of the great day of God Almighty' ... is already commenced" and would culminate with the overthrow of all political rulership in 1914, at the end of "the Gentile Times".[19]

And was this the general thinking of Russell for a time period, or a single quote? what is the context, please of the quote? Please provide the surrounding paragraphs. Thanks. The reference and the context of the quote would be necessary to determine the purpose of the quote being here (a little confusing), and the context in which it is being quoted by a secondary author. This would help us to see if this quote is appropriate for this section. Natural (talk) 16:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)Natural Natural (talk) 16:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

It's unclear why you're trying to claim that the quote is not from the cited source, The Time Is At Hand (aka Studies in the Scriptures vol 2, text available online). The statement is consistent with other statements Russell made about the "great battle". Zion's Watch Tower, Jan 15, 1892: "The date of the close of that "battle" is definitely marked in Scripture as October, 1914." (formatting added) See Talk:Jehovah's_Witnesses/Archive 52#Accuracy of statment about C.T. Russell and Armageddon -1874--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Because, again, Wikipedia is raising points, touching on what suits it, things that need to be explored to get the right idea of what the thought is. Also, it would be quite evident, that the original reference from this quote is not from Russell's works directly, but from some other source. Which source was this reference taken from?
^ C. T. Russell, The Time is at Hand, Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society, 1889, page 101.
Most likely, R. Franz, the Bottings or Penton who were attempting to discredit Russell and so raised this point. Is that correct? Natural (talk) 21:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)Natural
I've already provided the link to Russell's The Time is at Hand above. You are welcome to read the entire chapter in full context.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Forming doctrine

Regarding the statement:

"The religion makes no provision for members to criticize or contribute to official teachings"

Do other religions typically provide a mechanism for lay members to contribute to official teachings? If not, the notability of the statement is negligible in which case that portion of the statement should probably be removed.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I removed the above statement. But editor:blackCab reverted it. I have to ask the following questions,

  • which religion is providing the wonderful provision for members to criticize its teachings?
  • which religion is allowing its members to contribute to its teachings?
  • would Vatican abandon its trinity doctrine if a member researched and proved trinity is wrong?
  • Would Muslims accept God is trinity if one of the members found it?
  • Would Hindus accept idol worship is wrong if a member say so?
  • which religion is not expecting its believers to not abide by its doctrine?
  • Which religion is allowing "private ideas" to spread through it?
  • If the answers are YES, then there would be no religion at all, all will explode.

Also,

--  Logical Thinker  08:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Anglican and Catholic synods allow members to propose church doctrines and legislation and criticize existing doctrines. See [6][7][8] BlackCab (talk) 08:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
If those religions accept criticism, its unique to those religions(should be notable in their pages in wiki). But in general no religion allows its adherents to question it in anyway. Still JW's are following a liberal policy in this, it allows persons to write suggestions to its HQ to clarify his new ideas(without proselytizing it) if he have any personal opinions.--  Logical Thinker  08:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Bible study independent of WTS publications is all but banned for JWs, which is significant and not typical of other religions. However, it seems unnecessary to retain the other part about members not having an official avenue for criticising the religion, which is hardly universal of other religions.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
That comment is a matter of viewpoint. Jehovah's Witnesses are encouraged to study the Bible and to read it, read it straight, that is read the Bible daily. That daily Bible reading is not Bible reading with JW literature per se, but straight Bible reading. The only people who really study the Bible with the aid of Bible literature are theoligians. Most Christians don't use a whole lot of other sources other than hearing the pastor or priest and possibly reading the Bible. JW read the Bible, and also use JW literature in their Bible study, as a seperate thing. The average JW, will read the Bible daily, and study the Bible with JW literature twice or three times a week, if they are up on everything. Natural (talk) 22:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Natural
Your response doesn't make sense. You claim that my statement about independent study is merely a matter of viewpoint, and then you confirm that though JWs read the Bible, they indeed only study the Bible with JW publications—because independent study without those publications is indeed strongly discouraged. In addition to a few pages of weekly Bible reading, a JW who is "up on everything" studies: daily, a 'Daily Text' (exposition of a scripture from a previous Watchtower article); weekly, a current Watchtower study article for the Watchtower Study, a chapter of a JW publication for the Congregation Bible Study (previously called the Congregation Book Study and still the same pre-printed question-and-answer format), segments of Our Kingdom Ministry for the Service Meeting, additional JW publications cited for the Ministry School, as well as other JW publications on Family Worship Evening and for additional Personal Bible Study; additionally, it is recommended that they also read the public editions of The Watchtower and Awake! each month as well as other New Releases. There are many groups (including the original Allegheny Bible Students) and individuals that study the Bible directly, wherein they read a passage and consider and usually discuss, the meaning of the passage and how it relates to other parts of the Bible, without the use of additional publications.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


This sentence need either a reconstruction or removal. It states WTS discourage formulating doctrines and "private ideas" (which is universally true to all religions because most religions won't allow formulating new doctrines and spreading "private ideas" ). However personal research on Bible without WTS publication is Strongly discouraged should be notified if necessary. Though its mentioned in the beginning that only GB assumes responsibility for interpreting scriptures.--  Logical Thinker  09:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
The observation that the Watch Tower Society does not allow questionining or dissent of its doctrines has been mentioned as a distinctive characteristic of the religion by several sources. Beckford's landmark sociological study of the Witnesses makes repeated reference to it. The statement about formulating doctrines is found in reliable source and is noteworthy. LogicalThinker's comments are displaying an increasingly stronger opposition to the inclusion of material, properly sourced, that is critical of his religion. He is revealing a clear bias he should try to restrain. He should also put greater effort into constructing his sentences so that they are in clear, comprehensible English if he wishes to continue contributing to a version of Wikipedia in a language with which he is unfamiliar. BlackCab (talk) 10:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Logicalthinker33, I reverted your most recent change because it attempted to inject a defensive assertion using 'hence' to draw a subjective conclusion rather than simply stating the situation. It is also unclear why you removed references.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

99% religion won't allow its followers to question it's teachings. I am not questioning the source, but I questioned it because its not a distinctive character to JW's. The fact that several sources highlight it is because of the increased animosity towards JW's throught the world. By the way, I know my English level is not satisfactory, however I feel its manageable. I am Ok with Jeffro77, may be you are right(You are an experienced editor).Still I don't understand how "some anointed" changed to "responsible anointed"(as in WT reference given) became a POV? --  Logical Thinker  10:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
You probably meant responsible as in accountable, however the word also conveys the meaning, trustworthy, which is subjective. Also, it is unclear why only a portion of the "anointed" would be deemed "responsible" in either sense. Nothing is lost by leaving out the word and simply indicating that a portion of the "anointed" determine doctrines.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for clarification. But I suggest you to consider the word "some appointed" which is similar to "accountable". I am not sure, still I am suggesting because I think it can make it clear. The reference WT given was recently studied, it explains that GB appoints some anointed Christians to handle doctrinal matters. And finally GB make decision on the doctrinal change suggested by those appointed persons. --  Logical Thinker  11:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Your suggestion, though ambiguous, doesn't change the fact that it is still only a very small portion of the "anointed" that determines doctrine.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
It may be of interest that in addition to the examples I gave above, the Southern Baptist Convention has recently undergone some controversy after alterations were made to the Baptist Faith and Message. The doctrinal changes were discussed, disputed, passed and subsequently criticized by some, supported by others. See [9]. In Australia the Uniting Church has its representative Assembly, which discusses and sets doctrines.[10]. The church's doctrines on such issues as gay marriage attract criticism from within the church. See [11]. There was disagreement among members at the Church of Scotland General Assembly last year over the membership and ministry of gay people. See [12]. Anglican churches in the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand hold annual synods at which members present motions that may involve doctrinal changes.
All these churches permit and encourage open discussion and criticism of doctrines and their leaders. Those synods provide a formal avenue for discussion of doctrines and proposal of new doctrinal positions. To Holden, Beckford and others who are familiar with the democratic process of those mainstream religions, it was noteworthy that Jehovah's Witnesses prohibit such discussion and criticism within their ranks. Even in 1945 Herbert Stroup's seminal study of the Witnesses ("Jehovah's Witnesses", Columbia UNiversity Press, p.124-126) referred to its leadership as "totalitarian", "authoritarian" and "arrogant". The fact that those authors highlighted the prohibition of criticism (reinforced with the mantra in WTS publications demanding loyalty and submission to the "organization" and the threat of shunning for those who refuse to knuckle down) makes it notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The sentence that opens this thread, then, ""The religion makes no provision for members to criticize or contribute to official teachings", is certainly worth including. --BlackCab (talk) 11:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
It wouldn't be appropriate to say that their position is unique, but based on your comments indicating a notable contrast, the wording in question seems reasonable.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Confusing detail on business

BlackCab edited this out, saying it is not a significant part of the history of Jehovah's Witnesses.

</ref> Russell sold his prospering business and used his assets to "help people in a spiritual way".[14]

The detail on Russell establising the WAtchtower Society as a "business convenience" is confusing, as the Watchtower is non-profit, not a business, and Russell sold his business to form the Watchtower. It would be better to edit out, then, business convenience, or to include the comments above, about Russell selling his businss, so there isn't judgement placed on Russell's interests in the Watchtower. Russell clearly wasn't running a "businss" with the Watchtower, and didn't make money, but used all his money on it. Natural (talk) 22:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Natural

As you say, you are confused. Russell himself stressed that the Society existed as a "business convenience" only. See the link at Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania#Incorporation (currently ref. No. 16). He set up the Society as a publishing instrument that would attract money and spend it on disseminating his views. In 1944, long after he was dead, the charter was changed and the Society became a religious organization that established religious doctrines and set it itself up as the governing agency of the Jehovah's Witness religion. At that point, obviously, it was no longer a "business convenience" and nor is it today. BlackCab (talk) 00:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
What are you talking about "attract money"? The other thing, why did BlackCab edit out the altruistic part, where he sold his things, but then the part is highlighted about a business convenience? And where is the evidence that he created the Watchtower Society Inc to attract money? Is that what you personally are saying, or are you providing evidence for that? In any case, if the Wikipedia editor here is going to make mention of business here, then the other side also will be presented, about Russell's business. If the word business is taken out, then it doesn't need to be mentioned. Natural (talk) 02:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)Natural
Russell sold his business before starting the Society; he may also have blown his nose and walked the dog before starting it. None of those things are terribly relevant. In the context of what the WTS is today however (a religious body that administers a religion and establishes doctrines and sends out missionaries), it is of note that the Society came into existence as a "business convenience" (his words). Russell also explained that the point of an incorporated Society was that if he died, money previously donated would not be dispersed as his estate, but continue to be used for the purpose he intended. Thus he encouraged readers to donate $10, in exchange for which he would provide one share in the Society. You really should do more research about the history of your own religion. --BlackCab (talk) 09:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
That Russell sold his previous business may be relevant to the establishment of Zion's Watch Tower Tract Society if the money from the sale was used as capital toward setting up the Society. However, it isn't directly relevant to Jehovah's Witnesses, though the establishment of the Society is itself directly relevant because the same corporation is still used.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
The fact that the editors here are making a point to add this detail, which is not commonly printed, indicates that they are trying to put the motive on Russell, that he was using the Watchtower for business interests, in other words, questioning, or casting into doubt his pure motives in establishing the Watchtower. So, if any mention here is made of business, then it needs to be explored from both sides, and explained, just what is meant by business. A lot of ministers use religion as a false front to make money, millions. If Russell's character is to be questioned by raising this idea, it needs to be reworded, or explained more fully. Natural (talk) 21:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)Natural
Only one editor has expressed specific desire for the term "business convenience". It is unclear which editors you're referring to. However, I see nothing harmful in the phrase specifically used by Russell to describe the corporation he set up to for financial support of publishing for his preaching activities. Whatever 'motive' you are inferring is in your own mind.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Is Photo of Kingdom Hall relevant to Organization Section?

The editors here are prejudicial to my arguments to include a Kingdom Hall image in the organization Section. Every time when I give proper response to why a Kingdom Hall Image is appropriate and improves the Quality of the article, editors here are finding ways to delete the image. At first they argued that kingdom Hall image don't find right place to insert. Then they started another argument that Kingdom Hall is not the part of JW's organization. Is the photograph in the "Organization" section relevant to the article? Will it improve the quality of the article?  Logical Thinker  13:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

You are demonstraing a lack of logical thinking. An illustration of a Kingdom Hall is already contained in the article. You are attempting to add a second illustration of a Kingdom Hall in a section of the article unrelated to places of worship, and have added the words "Kingdom Hall" to that section as a feeble justification for doing so. My arguments are based on common sense and logic; you are claiming they are based on prejudice and personal hostility, which falls well short of the Wikipedia guideline on assuming good faith. You have yet to explain why it is so important to have two photographs to illustrate the same thing, a building that is given only passing mention in the article. BlackCab (talk) 13:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
The image at the worship section shows how the worship goes inside a Kingdom Hall. But it doesn't shows a general look or exterior of a Kingdom Hall building. There are over 0.1 million Kingdom Hall's all over the world. It's unique gathering place of JW's, and Kingdom Halls are so different from the buildings used by other Christian denominations. Further, the organization section explains about how JW's are organized from top(Governing body at head quarters) to bottom(congregation or Kingdom Hall). The image of Head Quarters is already described at title image. Now its the turn to describe the Kingdom Hall in the organization section. Further 3rd paragraph in organizing section describes in detail how the Jehovah's Witnesses are organized inside a Kingdom Hall or congregation. It's noteworthy that a badge of 1970 assembly is used to illustrate 1975 issue of JW's. But why then we can't place an image of a Kingdom Hall to describe a congregation? Its obvious that the quality of the article can be significantly increased by using such aesthetically pleasing images. Wikipedia encourages such images wherever its at least directly related and possible. Why should then we prevent use of such images?--  Logical Thinker  14:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
As per wiki policy editors should not be too rigid in their opinions. In my opinion the image is good and could make the article look standout. Positioning of images not plays a major role as long as the image is directly related to the entire article.-82.139.99.74 (talk) 03:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
User:Logicalthinker33, I have previously suggested that the 1975 lapel card image is unnecessary, and it is not directly relevant to this discussion. The relevant Wikipedia guideline states that "articles that use more than one image should present a variety of material near relevant text." The specific image of the Kingdom Hall in question isn't especially notable or remarkable, and isn't particularly helpful or representative in the Organization section. The picture might be suitable in a section/article explaining that Kingdom Halls look different to typical churches.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
The images of lapel card should be removed in my suggestion too. I already expressed it and only blackCab have the opinion to keep it. It seems odd to give an image of the interior of a Kingdom Hall without giving an exterior look. The Organizing in Kingdom hall is described in the 3rd para of organization section. And in worship section KH is described to demonstrate how worship goes on in the KH. relevant Wikipedia guideline also states "Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly related to the article's topic." In case if Kingdom Hall Image is removed, the lapel card should also be removed for similar reasons. However I welcome more comments from 3rd party editors and willing to accept any good decisions.--  Logical Thinker  04:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Acceptance of one image is not conditional on the other. As I have previously stated, the failed expectations for 1975 are a notable part of the organization's history and the image of the lapel badge is directly relevant to that. A picture of a building in an unnamed place is an inappropriate illustration in a section dealing with the organizational structure of Jehovah's Witnesses. BlackCab (talk) 04:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree that the 1975 image is not essential to the article, though it is directly relevant to the section it's in. However, BlackCab is correct that retaining one image is not conditional on the other. The picture of the KH is only tenuously connected to the Organization section. As previously stated, it would be more relevant to the Worship section, however there is already a suitable picture there and there isn't enough text to warrant an extra picture. The current picture in the Worship section is more helpful than the fairly plain face of a brick building, so I would not support replacing the current picture with the other. It appears, or rather, it has been fairly directly stated, that the proponent of this picture is using it simply to compete with the other ('1975') picture in the article to which they object.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I welcome 3rd party comments from editors other than BlackCab and Jeffro. The history section is too large and redundant as I stated before, and hence highlighting a particular image of 1975 which is enough explained in introduction, history and criticism is not a good practice. However I compared lapel card with KH image to show that how some editors are sloppy to matters interested to them rather than to improve the article and keep neutrality. --  Logical Thinker  05:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
You seem to find it hard to stick to the same story. Your motives for including the second Kingdom Hall image have changed again. Your claims of "sloppiness" and a supposed breach of neutrality by including the 1975 image are pretty weak. BlackCab (talk) 05:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Already Jeffro had the same opinion of me in the case of Lapel Card. Lapel card is inappropriate as I mentioned earlier. However in the case of Kingdom Hall, I am not too rigid but I encourage to make a judicious decision after waiting some days for more 3rd party comments--  Logical Thinker  14:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't see the harm in having another picture. It just doesn't seem like that big of a deal. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 23:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
It probably isn't necessary, and it actually isn't that directly relevant to the section, either. If there were more material directly relating to the kingdom halls in that section, maybe. Also, in all honesty, there is a possibility of excessive imaging in articles, and that itself can be an impediment to GA or FA. In this case, I think a verbal description of the Kingdom Halls as, basically, more or less otherwise average looking brick (if they generally are brick, I dunno) one-story (if that is general as well) buildings would probably be just as good. It could be used, but I am not particularly convinced it generally adds that much to the article, and particularly not much more than a verbal description. John Carter (talk) 18:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment:
  • The section in question is about the organizational structure of Jehovah's Witnesses and it is not at all related to places of worship. Therefore the image in question, an image of a Kingdom Hall, a place of worship of Jehovah's Witnesses, is misplaced in that section.
  • There is an article about Kingdom Halls, which is linked in section Worship. This article is already using the very same image, providing enough linkage, if the image is important in this regard.
  • The place of worship is minor regarding the topic Jehovah's Witnesses. Therefore the reference and link in section Worship is sufficient.
  • If the place of worship would be more important, a corresponding section in parallel to section Worship would be justified, but even then there would be a link to article Kingdom Hall, obsoleting the image in this article.
-- Tomdo08 (talk) 21:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason to add an image. There are ample images already in place. The image of the outside of the building seems unnecessary. I am unclear as to why the editor thinks the image is so important. But as someone has said, be flexible and maintain a professional attitude in the discussion. JodyB talk 17:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


i too agree that the addition of an image of the outside of a kingdom hall is unnecessary. although the modesty with which they are constructed is notable, it bears little weight on the subject matter of the article. i also agree that the image of the 1975 badge card doesn't belong, it does little to reinforce the article, but rather provides visual stimuli to create bias towards the year.Damoser (talk) 06:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Failed Predictions title should be changed, based on the wording of George D. Chryssides

George D. Chryssides disagrees in the thought of Failed Predictions or false prophecies and Jehovahs' Witnesses, and provides evidence for that viewpoint.

The title, then Failed Predictions, is a matter of viewpoint, rather than fact, and it may be possible to say, as does this article, that Jehovah's Witnesses have not had failed predictions, from this point of view.

http://www.equinoxjournals.com/IJSNR/article/viewFile/8147/pdf

Leon Festinger’s notion of prophecy as prediction that is liable to failure has been widely accepted in religious studies. The author argues that this understanding of prophecy is not shared by biblical scholars or by the Watch Tower Society. This article explores in detail the various calculations that the Society has used in devising its views on the last days, and how these have changed over time. Four periods of development are identified: (1) the era of founder-leader Charles Taze Russell; (2) the early Rutherford period; (3) a changed chronological system in 1935; and (4) the Society’s present-day understanding. Discussion is given to the key dates of 1914, 1918, 1925 and 1975, and to the Society’s changed understanding of the ‘generation that would not pass’ until the fulfilment of prophecy. It is argued that, although there have been failures in prophetic speculation, the changing views and dates of the Jehovah’s Witnesses are more largely attributable to changed understandings of biblical chronology than to failed predictions. For the Jehovah’s Witnesses prophecy serves more as a way of discerning a divine plan in human history than a means to predicting the future.

Natural (talk) 21:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)Natural

Semantics about 'changed understandings' are irrelevant. If someone says something will happen and it doesn't happen, their prediction failed.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


After reading the entire pdf, I have a few issues with this Natural. On book page 31 (page 5 in the pdf format) it has a WT magazine quote saying "So, does Jehovah have a prophet to help them, to warn them of dangers and to declare things to come? These questions can be answered in the affirmative. Who is this prophet? ... This “prophet” was not one man, but was a body of men and women. It was the small group of footstep followers of Jesus Christ, known at that time as International Bible Students. Today they are known as Jehovah’s Christian witnesses. (Watch Tower 1972, 197). Then just after it the quote that "disproves" the notion of the GB as being "prophets" is "“Jehovah’s Witnesses do not claim to be inspired prophets. They have made mistakes. Like the apostles of Jesus Christ, they have at times had some wrong expectations” (Watch Tower 1989, 136)." This is backtracking to the extreme. The first quote is from 1972, before their prophecy of 1975 was proven beyond a doubt wrong. If it had somehow been proven that 1975 was correct without a doubt, I can be quite certain that the GB members at the time would be touting themselves as getting their "prophecy" correct. And that is not a bias against the JW's GB, because I can honestly say that if I made a prophecy that came true, I'd be saying the same thing, as it's only human nature to promote the ideas that one came up with if they are proven accurate. That second quote is from 1982 however, after they HAD been proven wrong, so it looks like nothing more than self-preserving actions to say "they have at times had some wrong expectations".
The paper then basically goes over what we already know, mainly that Russell predicted 1914 as the year of Christ's return, and after he was proven wrong, it was changed to 1918 because "a Watch Tower article in 1916 suggested the period of the Jews’ favour may not have expired until 73 C.E. (the date of the Zealots’ mass suicide at Masada), rather than 70 C.E., thus adding a further three years to the “double” (the Gentile period), extending it from 1914 to 1918."(book page 37, pdf 11). To be honest, the section on Rutherford makes me firmly believe that to give any title other than "Failed Prophecies/Predictions", at the very least up until the end of Rutherford's time as leader of the WTS (which includes the failed predictions of Russell), would be disengenous at best. The talk of 1975 is very brief in the article, with MUCH more time being spent on Russell/Rutherford, and I'm not sure if I'm convinced that it wasn't a failed prediction. The quote given from the 1968 WT (book page 43, pdf page 17) is doubletalk at best, saying that although their prediction is "not infallible" it is "reasonably accurate", and the tone of the quote suggests that they are pretty sure that it's right.
This "summation" is not exactly a refutation of the idea of JW's not being prophets (book page 44, pdf 18) "This exposition of the development of the Watch Tower Society’s views on prophecy reveals that the principal role of prophecy is not to predict the future, but to interpret the past. of course it would be wrong to suggest that the Society never had expectations about the future: as it acknowledges there were disappointments relating to 1914, 1918, 1925 and 1975. As has been shown, these dates are not successive attempts to predict the same event that failed to materialize: they signify different points in a complex end-time calendar. The 1925 and 1975 dates were simply abandoned, while the 1914 and 1918 dates were retained, with fresh consideration of their meaning, and continue to be regarded as significant, even though these dates are now well past. Understanding biblical prophecy is therefore more about finding meaning, both in events in human history, and in the Bible itself." This basically is giving them an excuse for being wrong. I mean, "the principle role of prophecy is not to predict the future, but to interpret the past"? This gives someone free reign to not only predict the future, but then, if it turns out that they are wrong, to RE-interpret what they said to fit it to some new theory.
And to be honest, the very final paragraph of the whole thing makes me question the author's motives "All the significant dates mentioned by Jehovah’s Witnesses in expounding prophecy now lie firmly in the past, and most of their interpretation of prophecy (although not all) has involved interpreting past events rather than predicting future ones. It may seem arbitrary to pick out events such as the outbreak of the Great War, the formation of the League of Nations, and a number of Watch Tower conventions in the 1920s as events of key significance. however, Jehovah’s Witnesses have already been persuaded by their study of scripture, guided by Jehovah’s true organization, that these dates are significant; hence it is natural that they should look for noteworthy events that correspond to the salient dates. As Rutherford wrote: Prophecy can be better understood when fulfilled. Often God causes his people to enact the fulfillment of a prophecy without their knowing it at the time, and later he reveals to them the interpretation. (Rutherford 1922, 336). It's the italicized portion of this that makes me wonder, but it's bascially irrelevant to the point, as it just seems like obvious bias. However, if we are to use Franz and others as sources, we can't not use someone because they have a seemingly obvious bias FOR JW's. So this little section is just my personal response to the author after reading the paper.
After reading this however, I can honestly say that, in my opinion, this is merely a justification for their failed predictions by basically saying "in hindsight, we have learned that prophecy is MOSTLY about intrepreting the past". This is no way makes a convincing argument that when they did predict the future, they weren't wrong. It also does not convincingly state that the years of 1914, 1918, 1925 and 1975 were NOT predictions. And this to me is the very essence of the title "Failed Propecies/Predictions" (choose which word you want to use. Vyselink (talk) 04:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I had raised this issue before. A title like "criticism on changed understandings" or "criticism on unfulfilled expectations" or "criticism on doctrinal changes" could serve better.--  Logical Thinker  03:08, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
'Changed understandings' is JW jargon. Wikipedia is not censored and does not employ euphemisms. JW publications have made predictions, and those predictions failed.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
The issue has been raised many times. See Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 53#Failed Predictions/False Prophet Accusation against Jehovah's Witnesses for a list of books that refer to "failed predictions" or "failed prophecies". Other books already cited in the article also use those terms.
Your suggestion of "Criticism of doctrinal changes" misses the mark by a mile. The issue is that the Witnesses made specific predictions of things they believed would take place based on their understanding of scripture and in some cases dogmatically stated there was no room for doubt. In some cases members reacted to those predictions in specific ways and it certainly heightened their missionary zeal and the number of baptisms. This is a religion that continues to hold among its core doctrines explicit beliefs about what it believes will happen in the future, even in some cases detailing the order in which it believes some of those things will take place. Membership of the religion effectively requires Witnesses to also adhere to those expectations. In that context the failure of past predictions is notable and the use of the term "failed predictions" is accurate and appropriate. BlackCab (talk) 04:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


although failed predictions sounds a little harsher than one may like, it is accurate. predictions were made according to incorrect understandings of the scriptures, which were later corrected. it is the practice of Witnesses to be candid about their history, as such this section is appropriate, and provides both sides of the argument equally. it is not this page's agenda to defend them, nor is it to criticize. if people want more information, they can review the cited sources, which show the truth behind the matter.

Natural, you have to remember that people who really want to find the truth about something won't settle for a single source, and people who don't want to find it, will settle for whatever suits their needs. in the end, the truth seekers have their truth, and that's all that matters.Damoser (talk) 06:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Witnesses find great satisfaction in establishing their version of "truth", and that's all that matters to them. The many inconsistencies raised by external commentators are brushed aside and ignored, no matter how obvious and stark they may be. I was a Witness for more than 20 years. I know how they think. BlackCab (talk) 08:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Damoser, "which were later corrected" sounds a little presumptuous. The predictions were later changed. There is no evidence that they are now correct.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

we don't ignore the faults, but rather focus on more accurate interpretations. if you were a witness when the proclaimers book was released, then you should know that Witnesses do not try to hide their faults. rather they are acknowledged, but not focused on. just as a forgiven sin shouldn't be focused on, so as not to discourage. i suggest you do as i am doing, and try to keep personal views out of this article. as a former witness you obviously disagree with and dislike the organization, that doesn't matter. this is a neutral website, and the article needs to coincide with that. i'm personally not a big fan of the wording of the section title, but it's accurate and succinct, so i set personal views aside and leave it be.Damoser (talk) 22:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Proclaimers is not as spin-free as you would have us believe. For example, zero elaboration is given about Conley; 1874 is attributed as something "Barbour succeeded in convincing Russell" rather than a core teaching that Russell held until his death; Rutherford's aggressive personality is watered down significantly. This is not an exhaustive list.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

i didn't say the proclaimers book was a full history, including every detail. i said it is candid, and used it an example to the Witnesses not trying to hide their faults. unrelated question; is it just a simple colon that you use to index your comment under the previous? thanks.Damoser (talk) 04:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

There is an important difference between omitting incidental information for brevity and leaving out or changing key points.
Unrelated answer: Yes, a colon at the beginning of a paragraph will indent that paragraph. Use additional colons to indent a further level. Additionally, using two spaces between sentences (sometimes called 'French spacing' though it was never a French typographical standard) is not necessary; it is also customary to begin sentences with a capital letter.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
The purpose of the Proclaimers book is to highlight the progression of the organization. Therefore, what you consider key points are not valid in context. The information you speak of is not concealed, however. And study of it is not discouraged, but again, we choose to focus on other things.
Thanks for letting me know. I don't generally bother with grammar rules when not writing something that doesn't absolutely need it, but it it bothers you, I can try to remember to be more proper here.Damoser (talk) 22:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Witnesses such as yourself say the Proclaimers book is "candid" because the Watch Tower Society itself describes it as "candid". In many areas it continues to be far from honest and frank. It was written as a public relations exercise with the veneer of honesty and it certainly fails to address many of the most sensitive points in the organization's history. Its one-sided treatment of the Watch Tower Society presidency dispute of 1917 is just one example of its attempt to whitewash the truth. BlackCab (talk) 05:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
(Damoser) I won't lose any sleep about improper capitalisation in Talk pages, but proper indentation makes it easier to review Talk page discussions. I only mentioned the other matters because they seemed relevant to your query about presentation of Talk page comments.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
BlackCab, say what you want. i know the history, and i'm just gonna have to disagree with you on this point. Jeffro, ok. well, thanks then. just didn't want my comments to irritate you anymore than they probably already do.Damoser (talk) 07:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Are Jehovah's Witnesses a branch split from bible students?

It is given in the info box that JW's are a branch of Bible students, then what is the need of specifying events before 1931?.Why it is given 1914,1925 JW's raised expectations? A branch means "a division". Many groups broke affiliation with WT society before 1931 and started independent groups. Those groups are not branches, they are actually splinter groups of bible students. I am wondering if somebody could give a Strong 3rd party reference mentioning JW's are a branch split from bible students? If it is somebody's personal opinion it should be removed. On the other hand there are many references supporting my point.--  Logical Thinker  03:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

As previously stated, the article does not need an entire history of the Bible Students. However, the article should present information about the Bible Students that is central to the historical and doctrinal development of JWs. The core JW doctrine of 1914 is certainly directly pertinent, as are details directly relevant to Rutherford who diverged the JWs away from the rest of the movement. Other Bible Student groups still exist, so it is plainly obvious that JWs are only a subset of that movement, irrespective of being the majority.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


Jeffro, your facts are a bit skewed. Rutherford didn't diverge the group away from the bible students, but rather the bible students diverged away from the rest of the group. As president of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, Rutherford was given the responsibility to govern the group. that being the case, the bible students that left were split from the original group, and not visa versa. Jehovah's Witnesses is the modern name for the group which started as the bible students. so, since the name was adopted after the split, the bible students are a separation of the original bible students, and Jehovah's Witnesses were previously known as the bible students. both come from the same source, but neither are divisions of the other.Damoser (talk) 07:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Though I understand your reasoning, no, my facts are not skewed. Rutherford did indeed diverge the movement from what was established by Russell, both administratively and doctrinally. Those Bible Students who left did so because they objected to the changes in the movement. Whether Rutherford was right or wrong or good or bad in making those changes is irrelevant.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Penton (p.62) notes how the name change in 1931 "served also as a major psychological break with Russell and the Bible Student past and was also an important step in the creation of a highly centralized 'theocratic' arrangement under Rutherford and his hand-picked successors." While there was no single point at which Rutherford split his group from the Bible Students, the net result of his doctrinal and administrative changes was a religion with quite different methods, ideologies, doctrines and aims to the groups of Bible Students who remained. BlackCab (talk) 08:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Its illogical in either way to place JW's as a branch of bible student movement. In the info-box it seems little bit messy, because it's an anomaly and controversial to simultaneously say that bible student movement was named as JW's in 1931 and still JW's was a branch of bible student movement. The fact is JW's are not a branch of bible student movement, but a group of bible students who do not broke the affiliation with bible student movement(controlled by WT society). I had removed that from the info-box.--  Logical Thinker  08:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
The religion is derived from the Bible Student movement, and it is not itself the Bible Student movement. It is illogical not to state from where it developed. It was not the Bible Student movement that was renamed in 1931, and the article doesn't say it was. The main branch of the movement, led by Rutherford, was given a new name in 1931, and that's what the article says.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


yes, your facts are skewed. the bible students left before any doctrinal changes were made. the proclaimers book, which candidly admits mistakes made by the organization at various points in time, says "The New President Moves Ahead Brother Rutherford was inclined, not to change the direction of the organization, but to continue in the forward-moving pattern established by Russell. Traveling representatives of the Society (known as pilgrims) were increased from 69 to 93. Distribution of the Society’s free tracts was accelerated on occasional Sundays in front of the churches and regularly in the house-to-house ministry. The “pastoral work,” which had been started prior to Russell’s death, was now stepped up. This was a follow-up work, similar to the return-visit activity now carried on by Jehovah’s Witnesses. To further revitalize the preaching work, the Society’s new president expanded the colporteur work. Colporteurs (forerunners of today’s pioneers) were increased from 372 to 461. “The year 1917 opened with rather a discouraging outlook,” stated The Watch Tower of December 15, 1917. Yes, following the death of C. T. Russell, there were some misgivings, some doubts, and some fears. Yet, the year-end report was encouraging; field activity had increased. Clearly, the work was moving ahead. Had the Bible Students passed another test—the death of C. T. Russell—successfully? Efforts to Gain Control Not everyone was supportive of the new president. C. T. Russell and J. F. Rutherford were very different men. They had different personalities and came from different backgrounds. These differences were hard for some to accept. In their minds, no one could ‘fill Brother Russell’s shoes.’ A few, especially at headquarters, actually resented Brother Rutherford. The fact that the work was moving ahead and that he was making every effort to follow the arrangements that had been put in place by Russell did not seem to impress them. Opposition soon mounted. Four members of the board of directors of the Society went so far as to endeavor to wrest administrative control from Rutherford’s hands. The situation came to a head in the summer of 1917, with the release of The Finished Mystery, the seventh volume of Studies in the Scriptures. Brother Russell had been unable to produce this volume during his lifetime, though he had hoped to do so. Following his death, the Executive Committee of the Society arranged for two associates, Clayton J. Woodworth and George H. Fisher, to prepare this book, which was a commentary on Revelation, The Song of Solomon, and Ezekiel. In part, it was based on what Russell had written about these Bible books, and other comments and explanations were added. The completed manuscript was approved for publication by officers of the Society and was released to the Bethel family at the dining table on Tuesday, July 17, 1917. On that same occasion, a startling announcement was made—the four opposing directors had been removed, and Brother Rutherford had appointed four others to fill the vacancies. What was the reaction? It was as if a bombshell had exploded! The four ousted directors seized upon the occasion and stirred up a five-hour controversy before the Bethel family over the administration of the Society’s affairs. A number of the Bethel family sympathized with the opposers. The opposition continued for several weeks, with the disturbers threatening to “overthrow the existing tyranny,” as they put it. But Brother Rutherford had a sound basis for the action he had taken. How so? It turned out that although the four opposing directors had been appointed by Brother Russell, these appointments had never been confirmed by vote of the corporation members at the annual meeting of the Society. Therefore, the four of them were not legal members of the board of directors at all! Rutherford had been aware of this but had not mentioned it at first. Why not? He had wanted to avoid giving the impression that he was going against Brother Russell’s wishes. However, when it became evident that they would not discontinue their opposition, Rutherford acted within his authority and responsibility as president to replace them with four others whose appointments were to be confirmed at the next annual meeting, to be held in January 1918. On August 8, the disgruntled ex-directors and their supporters left the Bethel family; they had been asked to leave because of the disturbance they had been creating. They soon began spreading their opposition by an extensive speaking and letter-writing campaign throughout the United States, Canada, and Europe. As a result, after the summer of 1917, a number of congregations of Bible Students were split into two groups—those loyal to the Society and those who were easy prey to the smooth talk of the opposers. But might the ousted directors, in an effort to gain control of the organization, try to influence those attending the annual meeting? Anticipating such a reaction, Rutherford felt it advisable to take a survey of all the congregations. The results? According to the report published in The Watch Tower of December 15, 1917, those voting indicated their overwhelming support of J. F. Rutherford and the directors cooperating with him! This was confirmed at the annual meeting. The opposers’ efforts to gain control had failed! What became of those opposers and their supporters? After the January 1918 annual meeting, the opposing ones splintered off, even choosing to celebrate the Memorial, on March 26, 1918, on their own. Any unity they enjoyed was short-lived, and before long they broke up into various sects. In most cases their numbers dwindled and their activity diminished or ceased entirely. Clearly, following Brother Russell’s death, the Bible Students faced a real test of loyalty. As Tarissa P. Gott, who was baptized in 1915, put it: “Many of those who had seemed so strong, so devoted to the Lord, began to turn away. . . . All of this just did not seem right, yet it was happening and it upset us. But I said to myself: ‘Was not this organization the one that Jehovah used to free us from the bonds of false religion? Have we not tasted of his goodness? If we were to leave now, where would we go? Would we not wind up following some man?’ We could not see why we should go with the apostates, so we stayed.”—John 6:66-69; Heb. 6:4-6. Some who withdrew from the organization later repented and associated with the Bible Students in worship once again. By far the majority, like Sister Gott, continued to cooperate with the Watch Tower Society and Brother Rutherford. The love and unity that bound them together had been built up through years of association together at meetings and conventions. They would allow nothing to break up that bond of union.—Col. 3:14."

the only thing Rutherford did was increase the efforts in the ministry. it is also to be noted that he was voted into his presidency at the anual meeting. therefore, he was the rightful leader of the organization. would you say that the catholics are a division of the protestants? no, because the papacy remained with the catholics, and the protestants were a division of them instead. therefore, any sects of the bible students, who still maintain that name are just that, sects of the movement. Jehovah's Witnesses are the new name for the original organization.Damoser (talk) 22:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The manner of your attempted backward comparison with Catholics and Protestants demonstrates that you do not understand correctly. JWs are a branch from the Bible Student movement in a manner similar to the Protestants being a branch from Catholicism (as there is not a direct comparison here, there is some ambiguity, because the Catholic Church remained the same when the Protestants diverged, however JWs did not remain the same as Russell's original movement.) The Bible Student movement came first. Later, there were JWs and there were other Bible Student groups. All of those later groups are branches of the original movement. Your subjective but irrelevant statement about Rutherford being the 'rightful' leader also indicates your bias.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

being voted into offices, gives someone the authority of that office, does it not? Rutherford had authority over the bible students. whether it changed during his authority or not, doesn't matter. it was still the entire original group, over which he held control. the fact remains that the others diverged from the original, and the original changed names. say that Jehovah's Witnesses were formally known as the bible students and you'd be accurate, saying they are a division thereof is not.Damoser (talk) 04:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Saying JWs were previously known as Bible Students would be correct. However saying that Jehovah's Witnesses were previously the Bible Students or that the Bible Students became known as Jehovah's Witnesses would be incorrect, because it improperly excludes other Bible Student groups. Russell never equated his religious movement with the Watch Tower corporation.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:01, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Then it's agreed. I apologize for the overzealous attitude of the others in defense of TWS. It's understandable that they are concerned with the image of their religion, and ultimately the God worshiped, just the same as I am. Let's all endeavor to keep this debate about the neutrality of the article. Though, we must keep in mind, that it's going to be difficult to remain neutral, so let's maintain patience with one another.Damoser (talk) 22:54, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Eschatology section

We had discussed in the past, that some scriptures could be included in the footnotes. This would be of importance where there are terms that people might think Jehovah's Witnesses or someone else pulled out of a hat or made up, so that readers could see that these aren't original but Biblical phrases. This is also of importance in this article in view of the emphasis in it on criticisms of JW, esp. their eschatology and "failed predictions". Natural (talk) 23:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Natural

Forgive me Natural if I am showing my ignorance, but I'm not sure what the objection is here. There doesn't seem to be any wording in the eschatology section that needs Scriptural footnotes. Most of it seems pretty straightforward and understandable even if you have no knowledge of JW's. Am I missing something? Vyselink (talk) 21:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
For people who are familiar with Jehovah's Witnesses, "great crowd," "Armageddon" are commonplace words. For those who are not familiar with the Bible or Jehovah's Witnesses, it seems to be jargon that was made up by the religion. Natural (talk) 21:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)Natural
Armageddon is a common enough term and is linked in the first instance. Great crowd does not appear in the main article text.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


First time wiki comment, so i hope i'm doing this right. i suggest a simple change of word links. rather than linking the words, "Second Coming," link the word "parousia." my reasoning being this; the way that the sentence is structured -"They assert that the Greek word parousia—usually translated as "coming" when referring to Christ—is more accurately rendered as 'presence'"- implies an independent interpretation of the word parousia, which is not the case and is supported by the context of the article on the "Second Coming." readers will however assume that is the case, but will not think to check the second coming section to verify this, and likely not make the logical connection. The reason i suggest switching the link, rather than just adding a link, is to avoid redundancy. if you would rather just link to the terminology section of the article, that would be appropriate and suitable as well.Damoser (talk) 05:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Damoser, if you link "parousia" it will not matter, as parousia redirects to Second Coming anyway. Vyselink (talk) 20:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


you missed the point. the way the sentence is stated implies an independent interpretation of the word, when in fact it is a more literal interpretation, which is highlighted in the second coming article. people will therefore read it as this "Jehovah's Witnesses intentionally translate the scripture in a way contrary to how it should be." that is the implication, and message received. so, in order to keep a negative bias out of the section the word parousia should be linked, so people will check for themselves. i realize the link on the same article is later provided, but the logical connection is not made, and the majority of people will not make it. they won't click the link for second coming, since they already know what it is, the majority, that is. my point is logical, valid, and will not change the efficacy of the article, or appeal of it.Damoser (talk) 22:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The link to Second Coming of Christ should be toward the beginning of the paragraph, perhaps on 'Jesus Christ returned', though some rephrasing could also be done. However, whether JWs 'intentionally' translate parousia in a 'contrary' manner is quite irrelevant. They do interpret it in a manner that is different to most denominations' interpretations, and the article properly conveys that point. Any further subjective inferences are beside the point.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
rephrasing would be fine. perhaps something along the lines of. "Watch Tower Society publications teach that Jesus Christ began to rule in heaven as king of God's Kingdom in October 1914.[157] Satan was subsequently ousted from heaven to the earth, resulting in "woe" to mankind.[158] They believe that Jesus' rule is an invisible one, perceived as a series of signs. They base this belief on an alternative rendering of the Greek word parousia—usually translated as "coming" when referring to Christ—which they translate as "presence", with his return perceived only as a series of "signs". They further believe that Christ's invisible presence will last for an unknown period.[159]"
the wording is more accurate to the teachings of Witnesses, and also neutral. Witnesses generally only refer to Jesus' kingly power as the "second coming" when trying to relate it to people of other religions. this removes the link for second coming, and frees it up for parousia. again, i believe this is more neutral, but i'm open to suggestions.Damoser (talk) 22:16, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
I'd be fine with something similar to what you've suggested, with some minor changes. Perhaps:
Watch Tower Society publications teach that Jesus Christ began to rule in heaven as king of God's Kingdom in October 1914, and that Satan was subsequently ousted from heaven to the earth, resulting in "woe" to mankind. They believe that Jesus rules invisibly, perceived only by a series of "signs". They base this belief on a n alternative rendering of the Greek word parousia—usually translated as "coming" when referring to Christ—which they translate as "presence". They believe Jesus' presence refers to a period of unknown duration rather than a moment of arrival.
--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Modified slightly for redundancy and grammar surrounding the parenthetical statement. Removed 'alternative' as it could imply that they simply made up a different term; regardless of whether it's doctrinally valid, 'presence' is linguistically valid; παρουσία means 'presence', 'attendance', or 'appearance' in modern Greek.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
looks good to me. thanks for the help, i'm a decent writer, but definitely not the best.Damoser (talk) 07:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Holden's commnent needs in social criticisms about disfellowshipping

Needs to be Discussed before it is posted

I don't believe that the editor who put this on the Wikipedia page went back to the original source. It is no doubt a quote from either Ray Franz's book, Bottings, Penton, or possibly Gruess. Any argumentation that is put on Wikipedia article that is being used in an effort to discredit JW, or to try to show up their faults, then it must be properly sourced. The other thing is, this isn't an article on Russell, as Jeffro has repeatedly said, this type of detail, which requires explanation, isn't necessary on the front page Wikipedia article, which is already too long. It can be placed on the Russell article or eschatology if you want, where it can be more properly explained, rather than pulling a point out of the hat, which really doesn't tie fully into the theme of the paragraph. Natural (talk) 02:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)Natural

The statement is clearly sourced to page 163 of Holden's book. He writes: "Finding alternatives (to membership of the religion) is far from easy given the years of constraint placed on devotees to limit their contact with the outside world and to refrain from reading apostate literature. Those who do eventually break free are seldom allowed a dignified exit." Your decision to simply delete such material, sourced in this case from an academic who studed Witnesses, futher indicates your level of bias and underlines your campaign to erase from an an encyclopedia comments that fail to flatter your religion. Your pattern of behavior is becoming disruptive and approaching vandalism. And I can't see any statement in the article about Holden's views on Russell. Once again, I have no idea what you're raving about. BlackCab (talk) 03:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
My statemet was, that this text should be discussed, as is done with any major changes on Wikipedia, and once an agreement is reached by editors, then the statements are placed on the main article. You are disrupting the regular procedure. That is the case, yes? That before we make significant additions to the aritcle, they are discussed? So, that's the issue. I didn't state that the statement not be put up, but that you discuss it, and follow the procedure, just like the rest of the editors are required to.Natural (talk) 21:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)Natural
Additionally, these comments are in contrast to Holden's evaluation of the matter, which would need to be included if Holden's point of view on this point is to be considered in this article.
Elders are expected to treat disfellowshipped persons with dignity, both during and after.
8/1/98 p. 16 par. 16 Imitate Jehovah—Exercise Justice and Righteousness
16 Rather than condemn those who may have committed serious sins, elders seek to heal and to lead to repentance if that is possible. They rejoice when they can help someone who has gone astray. It saddens them, however, when a wrongdoer fails to repent. Then God’s righteous standards require them to disfellowship the unrepentant one. Even then, like the father of the prodigal son, they hope that some day the erring one will ‘come to his senses.’ (Luke 15:17, 18) Thus, elders take the initiative to visit certain disfellowshipped ones to remind them how they can return to Jehovah’s organization.
17 Elders especially need to imitate Jehovah’s justice when handling cases of wrongdoing. Sinners “kept drawing near” to Jesus because they felt that he would understand and help them. (Luke 15:1; Matthew 9:12, 13) Of course, Jesus did not condone wrongdoing. One mealtime spent with Jesus moved Zacchaeus, a notorious extortioner, to repent and make amends for all the suffering he had brought upon others. (Luke 19:8-10) Elders today have the same goal at their judicial hearings—to lead the erring one to repentance. If they are approachable as Jesus was, many wrongdoers will find it easier to seek their help. Natural (talk) 21:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)Natural
It is one sentence, Scott, and certainly needs no prior approval before adding it. And a Watchtower article on how those leaving should be treated doesn't have much bearing on what outside academic observe does happen. BlackCab (talk) 22:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
The wording you added, supposedly as a response to Holden, contained a WTS comment on the ideal treatment of "sinners" and "wrongdoers", while the source material referred to "serious sins", "repentance" and "erring ones". None of those comments relate to what Holden is here discussing, namely the experience of those who choose to leave the religion being shunned, their friendships severed, being cut off from family and the "trauma" involved in Witnesses refusing to attend the funerals of "lapsed" members. Reading Holden's words, and his even stronger comments in the "Notes" to that paragraph of the book (in which he refers to the GB's determination to "stamp out dissidence by imposing sanctions" to cut Witnesses off from "apostate" relatives), I find it difficult to understand why you think this fails to represent "Holden's point of view". To reiterate, the sentence is a clear and accurate representation of the views of an independent academic. I'm sure you'll respond with your usual accusation of bias, but it will be fascinating to see what grounds you'll base it on this time. --BlackCab (talk) 05:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


wouldn't it be more reasonable to compromise. as a NON-BIASED article, both views should be expressed. i suggest that Holden's words remain, and we add something like "however, Jehovah's Witnesses are encouraged to treat willful sinners with respect." then reference one or both of the articles mentioned. if you don't see it as fitting for this section, included it elsewhere, where disfellowshipping is mentioned. and make a note in this section that a person who disassociates themselves is considered the same as one who has been disfellowshipped.

i also suggest that the section title be changed to Social Criticisms, as this is more appropriate for the context.Damoser (talk) 06:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

A statement about suggested treatment of wilfil sinners is irrelevant to the subject. The specific criticism is of the Watch Tower Society command to shun Witnesses who "cannot conscientiously agree with all the religion's teachings and practices" and also those who "choose to leave". Some Witnesses may equate disagreement with WTS interpretations, or resigning membership, as "wilful sins", but in the context of an encyclopedia coverage of criticisms, there is no direct link. BlackCab (talk) 08:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

i'm merely suggesting a reasonable approach. if you feel it doesn't fit the context, add it elsewhere, i don't care where. but negative comments should be balanced with positive so as not to create bias, as has been done. also, not speaking with people who are no longer witnesses is not a command, it is a suggestion, as it has always been among Christians. Paul was the first to initiate it (1Cor 5:11-13). also, people who leave begin willfully practicing things Witnesses view as sins according to their understanding of the bible, such as fornication, idolatry, homosexuality, apostasy, upon doing so, they place themselves in the position Paul stated. your personal views on whether it is right or wrong doesn't matter. the article should remain neutral, but as i read it, i see far more negative comments than positive. this is not the point of wikipedia, and i will not let it be the point of this article.

if you want to keep the article entitled "Social Issues" then positive quotes about the beneficial contributions of witnesses to society should be included. these quotes are abundant, and i'd be willing to share them. in fact, this would be a better approach than simply renaming, so as to keep a balance of neutrality in the article, as it should be.Damoser (talk) 22:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

1 Corinthians 5:11-13 has nothing to do with attitude toward former members of a religion who have left simply because they do not accept its doctrines. (However, the moral value judgments expressed in those verses do themselves constitute a subjective appeal to authority.) JWs are indeed directed not to speak to 'disassociated' or 'disfellowshipped' members rather than it simply being a 'suggestion'. Your claim that former members necessarily begin 'wilfully' committing a series of other 'sins' further demonstrates your bias. It is of course amusing that you tacked on 'apostasy', which has nothing at all to do with the passage from 1 Corinthians.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
as someone who is not a witness, i don't think you can accurately say what goes on. i'll tell you personal experiences. my mother was disfellowshipped when i was 3, when she decided to ignore the marriage arrangement, and form bonds with a man outside of it. i grew up in contact with my mother, visiting her when i had school vacations. my father and i moved to iowa later, when i was 17, and i was still in contact with her. about the time i became 18, i started to take my faith more seriously. the elders in my congregation, knew my mother was disfellowshipped, and never once told me to stop talking to her, never even counseled me on it. it was due to various studies and assembly parts that i made my own decision to cease contact. another example, i have a friend, who was an unbaptized publisher. she fell for a non-witness guy, committed fornication, and made the decision to leave. i lessened the amount of contact, but never quit talking to her, because she was never constituted a sister, being unbaptized. some people did stop talking to her, but the advice given is to do what your own conscience decides is right. i don't cease talking to people who stop going to meetings, just because they may disagree with something that happened, in the congregation or the organization, and we are not commanded to do so. i stop talking to people for one reason, they unrepentantly commit a serious sin, which includes apostasy. whether any non-Witnesses think it's a serious sin or not doesn't matter. people of opposing nations don't have a qualm with someone committing treason in our nation, but that doesn't mean this nation punishing them is wrong, does it?
that's the extent to which i will discuss that here. we need to try to keep on topic of making sure this article remains neutral.Damoser (talk) 22:35, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Your baseless presumption that I am not familiar with either the activities and procedures of JWs is both ill-founded and irrelevant. JW elders aren't allowed to tell minors not to talk to their parents, and it would cause significant legal problems for the organization if they did, so your contact with your mother as a youth is irrelevant to the JW policy; however, it sounds as though treating your mother like a human again now will save you a significant amount of regret later on. The Pharisaical distinction so easily made by Witnesses between treatment of baptized and unbaptized 'sinners', as demonstrated by your contrasting examples, is amusing but also very sad.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
one thing, reread my comment, i wasn't a minor. i'm tempted to say more, but i said i wouldn't. can we please get on topic.Damoser (talk) 07:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
This isn't really the venue to discuss your personal experiences, however if you are going to offer those experiences as a basis for principles relating to this article, they will be examined in that context. You said you were in contact with your mother until you were 17, and that when you were 18, you took your religion more seriously and ceased contact. You were indeed a minor until you were 18.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Additionally, regardless of whatever your personal experiences might have been, officially elders are specifically directed to 'counsel' JWs who communicate with 'disfellowshipped' or 'disassociated' individuals. "If members of the congregation are known to have undue association with disfellowshipped or disassociated relatives who are not in the household, elders should counsel and reason with those members of the congregation from the Scriptures." ("Shepherd the Flock of God", pg 116, formatting from original). To contextualise "undue association", the publication refers to other Watch Tower Society literature such as “Keep Yourselves in God’s Love” (p. 208): "In other cases, the disfellowshipped relative may be living outside the immediate family circle and home. Although there might be a need for limited contact on some rare occasion to care for a necessary family matter, any such contact should be kept to a minimum," and The Watchtower, 15 April, 1988, pg 28: "It might be possible to have almost no contact at all with the relative. Even if there were some family matters requiring contact, this certainly would be kept to a minimum,". Therefore, the claim that shunning former members is merely a suggestion is entirely false.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Glad to see you're keeping up to speed with Jehovah's chariot, Jeffro, and accessing the latest publications. All this is irrelevant, however ... despite Damoser's apparent unfamiliarity with the dictates of his own religion, there is no basis for his claim that "negative comments should be balanced with positive so as not to create bias". The article simply notes the criticism of the Jehovah's Witness edict to refuse to speak to those who resign membership of the religion and a sociologist's view that Witnesses deny dignity to those who choose to leave. If there is a specific rebuttal, or defence, of that criticism in a reliable source, feel free to add it. BlackCab (talk) 10:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
The claim that shunning former members is merely a suggestion is relevant, because if that claim were valid then Holden's comments would need to be qualified with that information. However, because that claim is not true, then no such rebuttal in the article is required.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

were it truly a command, then there would consequences for not obeying, as there are with all the other commands. we are commanded to stay morally and spiritually clean, and commanded to preach. not preaching removes the status of being regular, and not remaining morally or spiritually clean removes status of being one of Jehovah's Witnesses. talking to disfellowshipped individuals is not a command, just the same as not watching R rated movies, listening to rap or heavy metal, watching soap operas, frequently associating with non-Witnesses are all suggestions. it is not now, nor has it ever been a command, and the context of the quote you gave shows that. counsel is given to persons who are doing things that can set them off balance spiritually. people who disobey commands are subject to some sort of reproof.

regarding my age, i was still in contact with my mother when i was 18, it wasn't until i was about 20 that i ceased contact. 18 is just the age at which i began to take my religion seriously, that is making sure i was studying for the meetings, being regular in attendance of them, and having a fuller share in the ministry. again, i was never once told to not speak to my mother. thanks for pointing out the relevance, now i don't have a problem talking about it.

@BlackCab, this section is purely criticisms. those are not neutral, and therefore do not fit the rule of neutrality that wikipedia has for it's articles. if you wish to keep it as "social issues," then the positive side of Witnesses social involvement needs to be shown, otherwise it is biased. to that extent, if you don't want to show them, then the section needs removed because of the bias shown.Damoser (talk) 01:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Despite your claim, there are indeed 'repercussions' for JWs who associate with 'disfellowshipped' individuals, including loss of 'privileges' in the congregation. Additionally, a JW who disputes a disfellowshipping decision or who has religious discussions with a former member may also be subjected to judicial proceedings, which can result in themself also being disfellowshipped. Irrespective of your personal experiences, those are the official policies, with which you are apparently unfamiliar.
Please note also that neutral editing does not mean that an article does not present notable criticisms from reliable sources.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
WTS publications certainly instruct and command (their word) Witnesses to cut off contact with disfellowshipped and disassociated members. The wording contained in the following articles is evidence that it is more than a recommendation or suggestion and the final source, the latest elders' manual, lists continued association with disfellowshipped non-relatives as a disfellowshipping offence.
  • Watchtower, June 1, 1992, pg 18: "Sometimes, in order to keep the congregation clean, elders have to disfellowship an unrepentant wrongdoer. This protects the congregation ... What, though, if the one disfellowshipped is a close friend or a relative? Suppose the individual is our father or mother or our son or daughter. Do we nevertheless respect the action taken by the elders? True, it may be difficult. But what an abuse of our freedom it would be to question the decision of the elders and continue to associate spiritually with one who has proved to be a corrupting influence in the congregation!"
  • Watchtower, July 1, 1984, pg 31: "Occasionally a Witness on his own initiative will decide to leave the way of truth ... He may inform them in writing, or state before witnesses, that he wants to disassociate himself from the congregation and not be known as a Witness ... the elders would then make a brief announcement of his disassociation so that the congregation will know that he 'went out from us.' They then will adhere to the inspired injunction ‘not to receive such a one into their homes or say a greeting to him'."
  • Watchtower, September 15, 1981, pg 22,23: "Yes, the Bible commands Christians not to keep company or fellowship with a person who has been expelled from the congregation ... Their refusal to fellowship with an expelled person on any spiritual or social level reflects loyalty to God’s standards and obedience to his command at 1 Corinthians 5:11, 13. ... Persons who make themselves 'not of our sort' by deliberately rejecting the faith and beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses should appropriately be viewed and treated as are those who have been disfellowshiped for wrongdoing."
  • Our Kingdom Ministry, August 2002: "God’s Word commands Christians not to keep company or fellowship with a person who has been expelled from the congregation ... This means that loyal Christians do not have spiritual fellowship with anyone who has been expelled from the congregation. But more is involved ... we also avoid social fellowship with an expelled person. This would rule out joining him in a picnic, party, ball game, or trip to the mall or theater or sitting down to a meal with him either in the home or at a restaurant. What about speaking with a disfellowshipped person? ... A simple ‘Hello’ to someone can be the first step that develops into a conversation and maybe even a friendship. Would we want to take that first step with a disfellowshiped person?"
  • Andrew Holden, "Jehovah's Witnesses" (2002), pg. 155: "Disfellowshipped individuals must be shunned by other members of the congregation ... Witnesses maintaining any contact with disfellowshipped individuals also risk disfellowship."
  • Shepherd the Flock of God, pg. 60: (Chapter deals with "Offenses requiring judicial action"): "Brazen conduct: Brazen conduct may be involved in the following if the wrongdoer has an insolent, contemptuous attitude made evident by a practice of these things: Willful, continued, unnecessary association with disfellowshipped nonrelatives despite repeated counsel."
The Wikipedia article appropriately includes criticism of the religion. Their inclusion is not a breach of WP:NPOV. See WP:CRITS. BlackCab (talk) 02:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


persons are only subject to repercussions if they do things unbefiting of a Christian. the only case in which this would involve contact with someone who is no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses, would be if they too began participating in the conduct of the person, or defending such conduct within the eyes of the congregation and the public. defending such conduct is to say that the moral values set forth are incorrect and is therefore a form of apostasy, or resistance against the set standards of the Christian congregation. this is not the same as just keeping in contact with persons who were formerly Witnesses. that has always been my understanding of it. i can ask my local elders for clarification. but it won't change my view of it either way.
concerning the section, i reread it, after having read the article on neutral point of view in the wiki guide, and i agree it is neutral written. but being as it's entitled "social issues," i see room for comments from other sources that are not criticisms. i suggest it be presented in a different paragraph, and be something like this;
Other social commentators have noted the religions members to be "model citizens," and that they have "a positive impact" on communities. (source; http://www.strausnews.com/articles/2010/02/13/warwick_advertiser/news/1.txt) Speaking on the impact had with the building of new facilities in the Solomon Islands, Don Boykins said they were able to reach a "level of excellence that they never expected was possible." (source; http://www.solomonstarnews.com/viewpoint/private-view/1894-jehovahs-witnesses-open-day) After witnessing their activities during a District Convention Richard Leib wrote "it wasn't possible to see these people in restaurants, on the streets and in stores without being impressed." (source: Elhart Truth Sep 26, 2010 http://www.etruth.com/Know/News/Story.aspx?ID=523943) Their conventions also help local economies in "convention cities," where they have "generated an amazing boost in sales." (source; http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/1998-10-28/business/9810270611_1_palm-beach-lakes-jehovah-s-witnesses-merchants).
that's all i have for now. it's getting pretty late and i have a doctors appointment 6 hours, so i'll get back to it later. tell me what you think of it so farDamoser (talk) 08:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
The section is "Criticisms". I don't see that the glowing praise from bystanders quoted in newspapers has much to do with that subject, and nor is it a rebuttal of the specific criticisms. I take your point that the subheading "social issues" is not terribly explicit; a more accurate heading for that group of criticisms is "Authoritarianism" or "Autocratic leadership" or "Control of members". I'm happy to rewrite the section with a narrower focus with added references on that specific point. BlackCab (talk) 08:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
i hadn't even noticed that the entire section was criticisms. oops. sorry about that. i'll just have to find a more suitable place for that then.Damoser (talk) 09:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the claim, "persons are only subject to repercussions if they do things unbefiting of a Christian", that is entirely subjective, based on whatever arbitrary rules are in place at any particular time; something that is one day 'unbefitting of a Christian' might the next day be made a 'conscience matter', or vice versa. Currently however, the official position is that members who associate closely with former members receive 'counsel' from elders and those who thereafter persist in contact with former members are subject to 'judicial action'. That would seem to be consistent with Holden's comments on the matter.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I have renamed the "Social issues" section to more directly reflect the content of that section and reordered the section to more closely align with the most common criticisms of the Witnesses. Muramoto (1998) introduces his discussion of the issue by noting: "A most serious problem is that free speech, or more precisely, free thought and decision-making, are prohinited for JWs." Holden (2002, pg. 33) similarly notes: "The Watch Tower Society controls millions of people who are denied freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly and freedom of conscience ..." BlackCab (talk) 12:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

reference material 56 should be changed

The Watchtower, 10/1 1975 (i.e. the supposed month of Armageddon) on p. 3 says "SINCE a new Jewish lunar year began in September 1975 a significant point in human history was reached. What was that? According to the Bible’s count of time, mankind then completed 6,000 years of existence on earth. Yes, the first man Adam, if he had chosen to remain obedient under God’s rulership, would have still been alive and 6,000 years old in September of this year.

Does this mean, then, that mankind has now reached 6,000 years into the 7,000-year period that God ‘blessed and made sacred’ as his great “rest day”? Does it mean that Christ’s millennial Kingdom rule, as the final 1,000 years of that “rest day,” is to be reckoned from September 1975?—Gen. 1:27, 31; 2:2, 3; Rev. 20:1-6.

No, it does not mean that. Why not? Well, the Bible record shows that God’s creations on the “day” just preceding that 7,000-year “rest day” did not end with Adam’s creation. It shows a time lapse between the creation of Adam and that of his wife, Eve. During that time, God had Adam name the animals. Whether that period amounted to weeks or months or years, we do not know. So we do not know exactly when Jehovah’s great “rest day” began, nor do we know exactly when it will end. The same applies to the beginning of Christ’s millennial reign. The Bible provides us no way to fix the date, and so it does us no good to speculate when that date may be.—Gen. 2:18-25; Matt. 24:42, 44."

it is to be noted that this article was written and printed prior to September. this being the case reference 56 should be changed and a non paraphrased quote of the reference material be supplied. the paraphrasing implies that the Witnesses supported the 1975 theory moreso that they actually did, therefore casting excess doubt on the organization. the full quote of the 1980 Watchtower is this "In modern times such eagerness, commendable in itself, has led to attempts at setting dates for the desired liberation from the suffering and troubles that are the lot of persons throughout the earth. With the appearance of the book Life Everlasting—in Freedom of the Sons of God, and its comments as to how appropriate it would be for the millennial reign of Christ to parallel the seventh millennium of man’s existence, considerable expectation was aroused regarding the year 1975. There were statements made then, and thereafter, stressing that this was only a possibility. Unfortunately, however, along with such cautionary information, there were other statements published that implied that such realization of hopes by that year was more of a probability than a mere possibility. It is to be regretted that these latter statements apparently overshadowed the cautionary ones and contributed to a buildup of the expectation already initiated." i also think that a sentence from the previous paragraph should be included which states "Those who have tried to keep God’s judgment time “close in mind” have, on more than one occasion throughout history, become overly eager for that day’s arrival, in their own minds trying to rush the arrival of the desired events." as such the entire reference quote would be as follows; "Those who have tried to keep God’s judgment time “close in mind” have, on more than one occasion throughout history, become overly eager for that day’s arrival, in their own minds trying to rush the arrival of the desired events... In modern times such eagerness, commendable in itself, has led to attempts at setting dates for the desired liberation from the suffering and troubles that are the lot of persons throughout the earth. With the appearance of the book Life Everlasting—in Freedom of the Sons of God, and its comments as to how appropriate it would be for the millennial reign of Christ to parallel the seventh millennium of man’s existence, considerable expectation was aroused regarding the year 1975. There were statements made then, and thereafter, stressing that this was only a possibility. Unfortunately, however, along with such cautionary information, there were other statements published that implied that such realization of hopes by that year was more of a probability than a mere possibility. It is to be regretted that these latter statements apparently overshadowed the cautionary ones and contributed to a buildup of the expectation already initiated." thus putting it in it's proper context and removing a biased editing of the material.Damoser (talk) 06:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The article accurately states that in 1980 the Watch Tower Society "admitted its responsibility in building up hope" regarding 1975. I don't know what you're suggesting beyond that. It has become part of the subsequent myth that it was individual Witnesses who attached too much importance to certain statements in WTS literature and developed their own interpretations. The cited WT, and the books of Franz, Penton, Crompton, Botting and others accurately attest that the WTS built up strong expectations in published material and convention talks and the WTS later admitted it had gone too far. As Crompton (p.135) notes about the 1975 debacle, it is "obligatory upon the Witnesses to accept the Society's teachings without demur"; any who had publicly doubted at the time would possibly have faced a judicial committee for apostasy. BlackCab (talk) 08:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
"Those who have tried to keep God’s judgment time “close in mind” have, on more than one occasion throughout history, become overly eager for that day’s arrival, in their own minds trying to rush the arrival of the desired events" sounds a little biased to me, as it assumes that there IS a "God's judgement time". Beyond that, I agree with BlackCab. At the time, 1975 was THE date. Changing it's interpretation after the fact does nothing to lessen what it meant AT THE TIME. The article (and reference 56) clearly show what occured and what the WTS response was in 1980. Vyselink (talk) 20:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

it's edited to imply the article says something it doesn't. that is biased editing, and needs to be changed. the article i showed in the beginning, is not myth, but fact. it says that the date cannot be relied on, and was printed before the supposed occurrence. including the first sentence shows the intent of the article, which is highly relevant. if the article were about the admittance, then it would be different, but it's not. the editing implies that TWS is taking full responsibility for people relying on the date. it never has, and never will, because it never told them to.

the debacle is this article, which is more like something written in a agenda based newspaper than an encyclopedia. references are intentionally picked to show negative bias. positive views are intentionally blocked out, and things are edited to show only what you want people to see. it's a disgrace to the honesty wikipedia is supposed to be. remove your agendas, and make it neutral. i don't care if you include negative comments from observers, because people have the right to know both sides. but as such, the other side needs illuminated.Damoser (talk) 22:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if I didn't notice it before, or if it's new, but the sentence in the reference "persons having to do with the publication of the information" is not found in the source material, and has the sole purpose of creating bias. It needs removed.Damoser (talk) 02:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The phrase "persons having to do with the publication of the information" is in the article, in paragraph 6, and it is in italics in the original article. I'm not sure what impact that has on your claim that the article is biased. The statement in the article is accurate and based on reliable sources, including the Watchtower itself. You are trying to create an argument against the accuracy of that claim based on your own interpretation. BlackCab (talk) 02:43, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Damoser, the phrase in question is in The Watchtower, March 15, 1980, paragraph 6, at the top of page 18. I have amended the reference accordingly.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
paragraph six, which is the paragraph after the one the quote is taken from, for those who don't know, reads:
"In its issue of July 15, 1976, The Watchtower, commenting on the inadvisability of setting our sights on a certain date, stated: 'If anyone has been disappointed through not following this line of thought, he should now concentrate on adjusting his viewpoint, seeing that it was not the word of God that failed or deceived him and brought disappointment, but that his own understanding was based on wrong premises.' In saying 'anyone,' The Watchtower included all disappointed ones of Jehovah’s Witnesses, hence including persons having to do with the publication of the information that contributed to the buildup of hopes centered on that date."
you intentionally took it out of context to make it say what you wanted. the paragraph says that person disappointed included those who published the information. that is biased editing, if i've ever seen it. or do i need to define bias for you, so you can understand why it is? i'm assuming that you, blackcab, hold a grudge against TWS for what you call the 1975 "debacle." that much is obvious by how much importance you place on that event. that grudge needs to be removed from this article.
as i said before, both sides of the story need told, not just your angst against TWS. some sections in the article are just fine, but others are obviously biased towards your viewpoint. this article will be neutral. if need be, i will get wiki admins involved to keep it that way.Damoser (talk) 07:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
sorry BlackCab, i just get a little frustrated when it comes to things like this, just the same as you probably do. it wasn't my intention to attack you, though as i read it again i see that's pretty well what happened. but, can we please try to be neutral?Damoser (talk) 07:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
I think it's time to get off your high horse. Firstly, as far as I'm aware (and correct me if I'm wrong), I didn't write the section you're objecting to. Secondly, the Wikipedia article notes that although Watch Tower Society literature did not dogmatically state that the world would end in 1975, the society did concede it had published "information ... that contributed to the buildup of hopes centered on that date". In other words they had helped fuel the expectation. That's all the article says. You may read bias into that, but the statement is made accurately and with editorial balance. I have no particular "grudge" against the WTS over the 1975 debacle. I wasn't in that religion at that time and found out about it, like many other unsavory facts, long after I had been baptised. BlackCab (talk) 08:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Paragraph six is not the paragraph after the one the quote is taken from, it is the paragraph in question. It is meaningless to say the people who actually published the material that emphasised 1975 were simply poor disappointed victims independent of the information published.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
i don't know who wrote which section, and it doesn't matter to me. i apologize for the incorrect assumption, the logical conclusion was reached by the amount of emphasis you have placed on that date throughout this discussion page, but clearly i was wrong, again sorry. i wasn't contesting the article itself, though i do believe it could be worded better. i'm contesting the editing of the source material.
@Jeffro; no, it's not in the same paragraph. the entire section in question reads as follows:
"Hold to Your Choice!
4 If we remain faithful, God will not let us make ruinous mistakes. But sometimes he permits us to be in error so that we may see our need to look always to him and his Word. This strengthens our relationship with him and our endurance while waiting. We learn from our mistakes that it is necessary to be more careful in the future. The desire for the new system of things to take complete charge of the earth has always been very strong in Christians down through the centuries. And because of their own short life-span, they doubtless longed for it to come in their particular lifetime. Those who have tried to keep God’s judgment time “close in mind” have, on more than one occasion throughout history, become overly eager for that day’s arrival, in their own minds trying to rush the arrival of the desired events. (2 Pet. 3:12) In the first century, for example, the apostle Paul found it necessary to write to Christians in Thessalonica in this fashion, as we read at 2 Thessalonians 2:1-3: “However, brothers, respecting the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we request of you not to be quickly shaken from your reason nor to be excited either through an inspired expression or through a verbal message or through a letter as though from us, to the effect that the day of Jehovah is here. Let no one seduce you in any manner, because it will not come unless the apostasy comes first and the man of lawlessness gets revealed, the son of destruction.”
5 In modern times such eagerness, commendable in itself, has led to attempts at setting dates for the desired liberation from the suffering and troubles that are the lot of persons throughout the earth. With the appearance of the book Life Everlasting—in Freedom of the Sons of God, and its comments as to how appropriate it would be for the millennial reign of Christ to parallel the seventh millennium of man’s existence, considerable expectation was aroused regarding the year 1975. There were statements made then, and thereafter, stressing that this was only a possibility. Unfortunately, however, along with such cautionary information, there were other statements published that implied that such realization of hopes by that year was more of a probability than a mere possibility. It is to be regretted that these latter statements apparently overshadowed the cautionary ones and contributed to a buildup of the expectation already initiated.
6 In its issue of July 15, 1976, The Watchtower, commenting on the inadvisability of setting our sights on a certain date, stated: “If anyone has been disappointed through not following this line of thought, he should now concentrate on adjusting his viewpoint, seeing that it was not the word of God that failed or deceived him and brought disappointment, but that his own understanding was based on wrong premises.” In saying “anyone,” The Watchtower included all disappointed ones of Jehovah’s Witnesses, hence including persons having to do with the publication of the information that contributed to the buildup of hopes centered on that date.
7 Nevertheless, there is no reason for us to be shaken in faith in God’s promises. Rather, as a consequence, we are all moved to make a closer examination of the Scriptures regarding this matter of a day of judgment. In doing so, we find that the important thing is not the date. What is important is our keeping ever in mind that there is such a day—and it is getting closer and it will require an accounting on the part of all of us. Peter said that Christians should rightly be “awaiting and keeping close in mind the presence of the day of Jehovah.” (2 Pet. 3:12) It is not a certain date ahead; it is day-to-day living on the part of the Christian that is important. He must not live a single day without having in mind that he is under Jehovah’s loving care and direction and must submit himself thereto, keeping also in mind that he must account for his acts.
8 Jesus gave the reason why we should maintain such a viewpoint, saying: “For the Son of man is destined to come in the glory of his Father with his angels, and then he will recompense each one according to his behavior.” (Matt. 16:27) The apostle Paul also pointed out: “We shall all stand before the judgment seat of God . . . So, then, each of us will render an account for himself to God.” (Rom. 14:10-12) And, “we must all be made manifest before the judgment seat of the Christ, that each one may get his award for the things done through the body, according to the things he has practiced, whether it is good or vile.” (2 Cor. 5:10) How long do we have before making such an accounting? Jesus said: “He that has endured to the end is the one that will be saved.” (Matt. 24:13) When is “the end”? That end can come either at the end of this system of things or at the individual’s own death before then. How long, then, does each one of us have? No one can calculate the day when he will die. Likewise, Jesus said to his apostles about the time for establishing God’s kingdom: “It does not belong to you to get knowledge of the times or seasons which the Father has placed in his own jurisdiction.” (Acts 1:7) It is impossible for us to figure out the world’s end in advance."
i highlighted the editing in bold.
the current reference reads "With the appearance of the book Life Everlasting—in Freedom of the Sons of God, ... considerable expectation was aroused regarding the year 1975. ... there were other statements published that implied that such realization of hopes by that year was more of a probability than a mere possibility. It is to be regretted that these latter statements apparently overshadowed the cautionary ones and contributed to a buildup of the expectation already initiated. ... persons having to do with the publication of the information ... contributed to the buildup of hopes centered on that date.".
thus the material is taken out of context and edited in a way that leads readers to think it says something it was never intended to say. again, that is bias. my suggestion is this, remove the last sentence, and don't cut the paragraph cited. although it won't be completely in context, it will not be an intentional editing to create bias. it would read;
"With the appearance of the book Life Everlasting—in Freedom of the Sons of God, and its comments as to how appropriate it would be for the millennial reign of Christ to parallel the seventh millennium of man’s existence, considerable expectation was aroused regarding the year 1975. There were statements made then, and thereafter, stressing that this was only a possibility. Unfortunately, however, along with such cautionary information, there were other statements published that implied that such realization of hopes by that year was more of a probability than a mere possibility. It is to be regretted that these latter statements apparently overshadowed the cautionary ones and contributed to a buildup of the expectation already initiated."
please note that this is a compromise from my first suggestion, i'm just trying to be reasonable and neutral with this.Damoser (talk) 01:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
The quote is taken from paragraphs 5 and 6, so, no, paragraph 6 is not the paragraph after the one from which the quote is taken. There is no reason why a quote cannot span part of two paragraphs, and the context is unaltered. You previously claimed that JW publications are candid, and yet here, where there actually is some candour—acknowledging responsibility in their publications for building up hopes about 1975—you want it expunged from the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Additionally, when paragraph five has been quoted alone previously, I have seen JWs claim that the "other statements published" were actually from non-JW sources, such as newspapers. However, the comment from paragraph six establishes the context of those other statements, making it clear that those other statements published were indeed from those 'disappointed' writers of the Watch Tower Society itself, and is therefore necessary to properly qualify the quote.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
the content of paragraph five imply that the publication was done by WTS. which makes the other sentence redundant, and it can still be argued against in that context, if someone wanted to do so, as foolish as that might be. redundancy wasn't my initial point, but i figured it'd be more valid here, though i still retain that the addition of the other sentence creates bias.
also, adding the rest of the paragraph provides reference for the statement, that WTS did not dogmatically state 1975 was the year, therefore it is relevant. leaving the the portion i suggested more readily allows a neutral reading of the section.Damoser (talk) 08:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

New addition on Religious typification

It is very clear that the new section on Religious typification violates Wikipedia's notability policy. It was added only because of specific interest of blackCab in criticizing the WTS leaders because of his displeasure, resentment and hatred towards them. Its evident in his edits here, here, all of his edits in Governing body and criticism article. However I do not intend to remove that new section because I'm sure that it will be handled by other editors in future. Still Its funny to see blackCab reverted my reasonable addition on JW's approach towards faith healing here. He arbitrarily included Religious typification section because of his personal motives and on the other hand blames me on my reasonable addition. BlackCab please do not act like a hypocrite, if faith healing is arbitrary inclusion then JW's DO NOT celebrate Christmas, Easter ,birthday will be also arbitrary inclusion. Its a notable fact that JW's DO NOT follow faith healing when compared to other contemporary religions. So my inclusion is fully in accordance with Wiki policy on notability. At last remember this Golden Words as mentioned by a Turkey court while giving verdict on a case about JW's, "if this scheme or this work is from men, it will be overthrown; but if it is from God, YOU will not be able to overthrow them". --Logical Thinker:talk 03:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea why you have added the scripture at the end unless you think that you are somehow acting on behalf of God. Beckford's study is one of the most comprehensive published sociological studies of the religion and his summary of the "type" of religion Jehovah's Witnesses he perceived them to be is certainly notable. The subject is entirely unrelated to your addition in the "Worship" section about their views on faith healing. Faith healing is practised in SOME religions, but is not so widespread that it needs to be noted that Witnesses don't practise it; nor do most studies of the religion even mention it. It is a weak argument to compare their position on faith healing with their refusal to celebrate Christmas and Easter, which ARE celebrated by ALL mainstream Christian denominations, or their prohibition on celebrating birthdays, which puts them at odds with almost every human culture and religion. Their stand on Christmas, Easter and birthdays are certainly notable and are given attention in every external study of the religion. Introducing faith healing in "worship" is roughly as notable as mentioning that Kingdom Halls do not have pews or that hymn books are not handed out at worship meetings as they are at most mainstream religious services or that the Lord's Prayer is never recited aloud by congregants. BlackCab (talk) 04:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Again a shining example on your ownership of the article. JW's are millenerists and restoranists, Most of the contemporary religion having the same root follow faith healing. And even Roman Catholics have one faith healing center in my area. So its note worthy. But still you support addition of 3 elaborate para's on topics you are specifically interested in and on the other hand you removed notable distinction on faith healing. I am leaving you with your insolence in this matter. By the way, I included that scripture to remind you that your dream on destroying the reputation of the Organization will be an everlasting dream, because its evident that JW's are increasing day by day in-spite of criticism and opposition. That's why I said "if this scheme or this work is from men, it will be overthrown; but if it is from God, YOU will not be able to overthrow them". Time had already proven it, and it will be so in future. --Logical Thinker:talk 05:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I have no "dream" of destroying the reputation of the Watch Tower Society or Jehovah's Witnesses. The section I added is based entirely on the words of two independent, unbiased academics. Their views on the level of control of people's lives are worth noting and I share them gladly. I think it's good for members of the public to gain facts so they can make informed decisions about whether to join the religion or not, and the personal consequences should they later wish to depart. I wish those same facts were available when I became a member, but to my own cost, I believed the one-sided propaganda published in Watch Tower literature. BlackCab (talk) 05:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
'Logical' thinker, do you have any reliable third-party source that indicates that the absence of faith healing among JWs is in any way notable? If not, your personal views on the matter are irrelevant. BlackCab has provided sources for the information he has added, though it might be better to move the new paragraphs to the 'Criticism' article and summarise in this one.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Is the inserting of a user's tag in single quotes relevant? Or is it more of a personal attack, insinuating that said user is illogical and your argument is superior? I say to all the other would-be defenders of this page to abandon it and let it succumb to the full editing control of the obviously biased individuals, who have devoted a major portion of their daily lives to inserting biased and one-sided pseudo-objective information. Viewing the page addition was literally like playing a game of "What doesn't belong?" Religious Typification? Really? So, again, I say give editorial control over to such ones, it will not work out in the way they hope. The line of common-sense and objective authoring has vanished.Tim2k (talk) 16:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
The benchmark for inclusion of information in articles is that it is based on reliable sources. The personal view of User:Logicalthinker33 that the absence of faith healing is somehow notable is not logical unless there is a source for that alleged notability. I already indicated that the other additional information would be better suited to the criticism article rather than this one. The rest of your diatribe is irrelevant.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Beckford's assessment of the "type" of religion is no more a criticism of the religion per se than it is of the other "types" he includes in his list. BlackCab (talk) 19:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

first: this "Failed predictions have led to the alteration or abandonment of some doctrines" contradicts this "a low rate of doctrinal change or adjustment."

second: this "a definition he also applied to Scientology and the Unification Church." is irrelevant.

third: i agree with Tim2k, which is why i've not bothered to do anything further with this page. also, being as both the other editors were formerly Witnesses, and now pursue ways to criticize it, they are by definition apostates to the religion. therefore i have decided, of my own initiative, through thoughtful and prayerful consideration, to cease this limited contact i've had with them. it's fine with me to allow God to have the final say on this matter, of who is right and who is wrong.

so, to all Witnesses who think they need to change this and defend their faith, i suggest you follow the example of other fine Witnesses who defend their faith with conduct, and to those who will readily listen in your ministry. this is a waste of our time that can be better spent elsewhere.Damoser (talk) 02:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

1) Not really a contradiction. They have changed doctrines where reality of failed predictions has made such necessary.
2) I did think about removing that portion of the sentence. It does aid in identifying the intended classification, though I would not object to its removal.
3) Your third objection, based partly on supposition only, is irrelevant, and your theological motivations for editing or ceasing to edit are unimportant. Edit if you like, or don't.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
So if the statements I've added, all of which comply with Wikipedia policies, remain, that presumably means God has allowed them. Have you considered either of these two possibilities: (a) God doesn't use Wikipedia so hasn't caught up with the latest changes or (b) God doesn't endorse Jehovah's Witnesses and is just as offended by the Watch Tower Society's insistence that it alone is his representative on earth as he is by similar claims in the past 2000 years by every church in Christendom, from snake charmers to battlefield padres. The bottom line here is that this is a secular encyclopedia, based on secular sources. Jehovah's Witnesses unfortunately believe they live in a parallel universe where historical and biblical facts bend to their own peculiar interpretation. WTS publications can perpetuate that myth, providing a warm and fluffy security blanket to JWs, but out in the Real World™ the situation is slightly different. Perhaps it's best you retreat to your bubble if you're so easily affronted by the truth. BlackCab (talk) 08:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Jude 8, 11: “These men, too, indulging in dreams, are defiling the flesh and disregarding lordship and speaking abusively of glorious ones. Too bad for them, because they . . . have perished in the rebellious talk of Korah!”
Num. 16:1-3, 11, 19-21: “Korah . . . proceeded to get up, together with . . . two hundred and fifty men of the sons of Israel, chieftains of the assembly . . . So they congregated themselves against Moses and Aaron and said to them: ‘That is enough of you, because the whole assembly are all of them holy and Jehovah is in their midst. Why, then, should you lift yourselves up above the congregation of Jehovah?’ . . . [Moses said:] ‘You and all your assembly who are gathering together are against Jehovah. As for Aaron, what is he that you men should murmur against him?’ When Korah got all the assembly together against them at the entrance of the tent of meeting, then Jehovah’s glory appeared to all the assembly. Jehovah now spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying: ‘Separate yourselves from the midst of this assembly, that I may exterminate them in an instant.’”
You missed possibility (c).--Logical Thinker:talk 14:37, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Please refrain from quoting scriptures that have nothing to do with the article topic being discussed. Possibility (c) is that god doesn't exist, but each of the three possibilities are irrelevant. Please stay on topic.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Jehovah and Jesus

The small section seems missing the following distinct beliefs.

  • JW's apply the name Jehovah only to God the Father, and not to the trinity God (as what the mainstream Christians believe). I think it should be explicitly stated there to avoid confusion.
  • They consider Jesus as the God's appointed King for God's Kingdom, the only mediator and as the one who will judge people.

Won't it be worth to include it?--Logical Thinker:talk 06:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's ever been any confusion about to whom the name 'Jehovah' refers, and Trinitarians sources, such as the Catholic Encyclopedic discuss the name Jehovah as referring to only 'God the Father' without any ambiguity. Trinitarians don't refer to all elements of the Trinity as any single personal name.
The information you indicate about Jesus could possibly be added to the section about Jesus, however it is covered somewhat in the Eschatology section already.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Holy spirit is considered as father God Jehovah's power and not as a separate person, it is also missing--Logical Thinker:talk 08:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Ok, then it's correct to change the God's to God the father's biblical name. Also Holy spirit's nature is not mentioned in it. Jesus is considered as appointed King, only mediator, the appointed judge. All these are missing. I intent to add. Any objections? Logical Thinker:talk 09:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Sorry did not saw that user:Jeffro already did it. Thanks, however "the appointed judge" is missing. Otherwise I am ok--Logical Thinker:talk 09:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I have already included in the paragraph that JWs do not believe in a Trinity, so using 'God the father' would be wordy and redundant.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I have just added the term "judge" for Jesus and "heavenly father" for Jehovah God. Now its clear--Logical Thinker:talk 04:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
I have removed 'heavenly father', which redirects to God the Father, which in turn may imply a belief in the Trinity doctrine. Removing the term takes nothing away from the article, as 'God' is already linked and the article clearly identifies the entity being discussed.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Fringe and Coatrack--Violation of notability

The section on Religios typification is a clear violation of notability policy. It involves Wikipedia:Fringe theories and Wikipedia:Coatrack. An idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. Hence I removed the section. Its based on only one author James A. Beckford. If it should be kept then two or more independent scholarly reference should be kept.--Logical Thinker:talk 13:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

It would be desirable to have additional sources, however I am not at all convinced that Beckford is a fringe author.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
We cannot judge whether Beckford was a fringe or not. But we need more independent sourcing by other scholars who had the same conclusion. His statements are not widely supported by others as far as I know. From wiki policy "if an article is written about a well-known topic, it should not include fringe theories that may seem relevant but are only sourced by obscure texts that lack peer review. Note that fringe journals exist, some of which claim peer review. Only a very few of these actually have any meaningful peer review outside of promoters of the fringe theories, and should generally be considered unreliable." Further it has a coatrack issue too. "Coatrack articles can be created purposefully to promote a particular bias, and they can accidentally evolve through excessive focus on one aspect of the subject. In either case the article should be corrected." Also "The contents of a coatrack article can be superficially true. However, the mere excessive volume of the bias subject creates an article that, as a whole, is less than truthful. The existence of a "hook" in a given article is not a good reason to "hang" irrelevant and biased material there."--Logical Thinker:talk 13:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I have place an NPOV until the discussion obtain a conclusion--Logical Thinker:talk 14:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Having read the section, having a copy of the book and know Beckford's work pretty I see serious misuse of a source WP:RS to push a POV. He is correct it is a totalizing system and not a single Religious studies scholar or Sociologist of Religion would disagree with the statement as it a fact from the sociological standpoint. That being said it is obviously being used as a backdoor way to call it a cult ( the unsourced comparison to Scientology and the Unification Church makes this clear.) While factually true it is not presented in NPOV fashion and violation of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. WP:NOTACADEMIA also leaps to mind as it using a sociological term that the general public reads very differently that another Sociologist would. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 14:46, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree with this analysis by ResidentAnthropologist. --JN466 01:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Comment: Beckford is not fringe in any sense of the word. However, unless there are scholars as eminent as Beckford who can be cited as backup, the perception of PoV seems to be more one of WP:Undue weight. It is good to see sociological typology being mentioned in the article, but perhaps summarizing this further and moving it into the "Organization" section would resolve the problem. Condensing would also give an opportunity for removing some words with PoV overtones (e.g., such as "very assertive", "immense", "highly", etc.) and detail (e.g., mention of Unification and Scientology) that add little to the article. • Astynax talk 20:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Beckford's study remains one of the most comprehensive sociological studies of the religion and is frequently cited by other academic authors. Beckford is professor emeritus of sociology at an English university[13] and an unlikely peddler of fringe theories. Beckford mentions the Witnesses, Scientologists and Unification Church explicitly as members of a "relatively small" group of members of that Totalizing group of religions.
His assessment of where the Witnesses fit in with his assortment of sociological "types" is particularly valuable and notable in the context of a discussion of a comparitively small and often misunderstood religion. Without a separate Wikipedia article on those types, the term then needs a brief summary of the characteristics of that sociological group and why the Witnesses are included in it. I don't consider three paragraphs to be undue weight; nor does it push a personal point of view. The wording is editorially neutral and simply expresses the conclusion of that notable academic. BlackCab (talk) 21:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
The section is a clear vio of WP:UNDUE. WP:COATRACK and WP:NOTACADEMIA. Beckforth's study may be absolutely correct. But its a POV pushing in to the article. Its a waste of space. The article is complete without it. The matter given in typification section is already present in other forms as follows:
IN ORGANIZATION SECTION:Watch Tower publications emphasize the need for members to be obedient and loyal to Jehovah and to "his organization",[74][75][76] stating that individuals must remain part of it to receive God's favor and to survive Armageddon.[77][78][79] Witness publications state that acceptable service to God can be rendered only through that organization[80] and that members should remain submissive to the religion's leaders and to local congregational elders
IN SOURCE OF DOCTRINE SECTION:The religion makes no provision for members to criticize or contribute to official teachings[102] and all Witnesses must abide by its doctrines and organizational requirements.[103] The Watch Tower Society strongly discourages Witnesses from Bible study or research independent of its publications.[104][105]
IN CRITICISM SECTION:Denial of free speech and thought Critics have described the religion's leadership as autocratic and totalitarian because of Watch Tower Society requirements for loyalty and obedience by Witnesses,[253][254] intolerance of dissent or open discussion of doctrines and practices,[255] and the practice of shunning members who cannot conscientiously agree with all the religion's teachings.[256][257][258] Sociologist Andrew Holden says those who choose to leave the religion "are seldom allowed a dignified exit."[259] Sociologist Rodney Stark, however, states that while Jehovah's Witness leaders are "not always very democratic" and members are expected to conform to "rather strict standards," enforcement tends to be informal, sustained by close bonds of friendship and that Jehovah's Witnesses see themselves as "part of the power structure rather than subject to it."[52] Critics charge that Jehovah's Witnesses disparage "independent thinking", such as questioning the counsel it provides,[260][261][262] and have accused the Watch Tower Society of using elements of mind control by exercising "intellectual dominance" over Witnesses,[263] controlling information[258][264] and creating "mental isolation".[265] In a case involving Jehovah's Witnesses' activities in Russia, the European Court of Human Rights stated that the religion's requirements "are not fundamentally different from similar limitations that other religions impose on their followers' private lives" and that charges of "mind control" were "based on conjecture and uncorroborated by fact."[266]
In addition to this adding extra content is clearly a POV pushing. Editors need to be bold and should remove it immediately as per Wiki policy on WP:COATRACK without discussion. The existence of a "hook" in a given article is not a good reason to "hang" irrelevant material there." So far only the editor who inserted the section explicitly support it. I will wait one more day for comments and remove the section--Logical Thinker:talk 04:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Part of the role of an encyclopedia is to state the distinctive features of the subject of its articles. Holden (p.1) and other authors have noted some of the distinctive features about the Witnesses: (a) they are a rapidly growing religion, (b) devotees live in anticipation of the destruction of the present age and are organised to preach this message door to door and (c) they "stand out as authoritarian, calculating and aloof, and this makes their organisation distinctive from other social movements." Rogerson (p.2) notes: "Witnesses are an indoctrinated people whose beliefs and thoughts are shaped by the Watchtower Society whose headquarters are in New York." Beckford deals with all those points and more. The section about typology of religion in this article takes up a significant portion of the chapter he devotes the WT organization and is critical in helping to understand the degree of organization and subordination found in this religious movement. BlackCab (talk) 05:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Holden had quoted from Beckforth. The statements you mentioned above are mentioned in criticism section. It cannot be placed as a fact because witnesses reject statement (c). The statement "Witnesses are an indoctrinated people whose beliefs and thoughts are shaped by the Watchtower Society whose headquarters are in New York." is a criticism and violation of POV if used as an accepted fact. Also it violates WP:COATRACK where minority aspects overtakes the major subject. Typology was inserted by you, and as other editors mentioned, it is a POV pushing (and other violations) with a tautology of statements already found in other sections. Your statements may be relevant in a topic Jehovah's Witnesses sociology--Logical Thinker:talk 05:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
While Logical Thinker's arguement that (c) can't be stated as fact because witnesses "reject" it is irrelevant (just because someone rejects something doesn't mean it's not a fact. I.E. the whole "the world is flat" or "we are the center of the universe" theories), he does bring up at least one point as pointed out by • Astynax in that the section does give undue weight to the (albeit correct) opinions of one author. While Beckford is definitely NOT fringe (Logical, I hope you see that) I have to agree with Astynax and The Resident Anthropologist that it is WP:UNDUE and possibly violates WP:NPOV. While I personally would like to keep it in, as I agree with BlackCab that it helps people unfamiliar with JW's understand more about the religion, it would definitely need some more meat behind it other than Beckford. Vyselink (talk) 05:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Since its 1 am I am going to reply to this after i sleep. I just wanted to point out that WP:COATRACK is an essay and not policy. Also I feel like I am being used as a meatpupet. (or at least some canvasing)--Guerillero | My Talk 06:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
You statement on meat puppetry is absolutely a misunderstanding. I posted request for comments on those editors who had before participated in JW talks and those who are active in resolving religious debates. If you feel like that don't blame others.--Logical Thinker:talk 06:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

To be honest i forgot that i replied to those RFCs. I just felt like i was some random member you found off the street. I asked you why i was being asked and if you mentioned this it wouldn't have raised an eyebrow.--Guerillero | My Talk 06:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Logicalthinker33 has raised the spurious objection that Beckford's typology of religions is a fringe theory and also claims that the use of Beckford's typology breaches Wiki standards of neutrality. The statements are drawn from a reliable source, accurately represent that source and are presented in an editorially neutral fashion. I have already added two further sources — Holden and Wilson — that support Beckford's statement. More are available and I'm happy to add those as well. Each supporting source chips away the argument that this is a minority view given undue weight. Without the argument of undue weight, the claim of bias has little basis. Logicalthinker, while soliciting support from other editors and claiming this page is "always dominated by some major ex-member editors",[14] neglects to mention that he is a Witness who clearly prefers to see only positive material published about his religion, and is therefore prone to deleting material, well-sourced though it may be, that presents his religion in a less than flattering light. His deletion of the statements of a respected academic is nothing but a "push" of a POV. BlackCab (talk) 07:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Don't change the focus of the subject to a particular editor. The issue is not about user:logicalthinker or user:BlackCab. The issue is the WP:POVPUSH in the article, in which the section you added makes undue weight to sociological aspects. The section is essentially a tautology of statements already found in Organization, Source of doctrine and criticism section as I stated before. The violation involves WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTACADEMIA. It have a WP:LABEL violation too (totalizing, cult, extremist and similar words should be best avoided in Wikipedia). Academical terms used there can mislead a general reader to a conclusion that JW's are a cult. Even if you add more references, its still violation of WP:COATRACK in which the statements may be true but it overtakes the nominal subject. Also it can be possibly an WP:ATTACK on religion. In contradiction to Beckforth's view, in a case involving Jehovah's Witnesses' activities in Russia, the European Court of Human Rights stated that the religion's requirements "are not fundamentally different from similar limitations that other religions impose on their followers' private lives" and that charges of "mind control" were "based on conjecture and uncorroborated by fact." As your profile shows it's a known fact that you are not a neutral editor. You have did similar "push POV" with a WP:COATRACK in other articles.(for example the NPOV disputed article, Eschatology of Jehovah's Witnesses) --Logical Thinker:talk 07:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
You have previously deleted that entire section, claiming the professor's typology was a fringe theory, which is clearly nonsense. Another editor has suggested including Beckford's typology within the "Organization" section. Can you clarify whether you object to the inclusion of all that section, or just parts of it? What parts of it do you believe are biased and why? Or do you just object to the bits that highlight academeic views of the high levels of control exercised by your religion? BlackCab (talk) 09:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Agree with User:Astynax, particularly regarding overtones; I'm in two minds about including reference to the other religions Beckford cites, and these should probably as part of an original quote, if at all. Unless there is some preponderance of third-party sources categorising the religion differently from a sociological perspective, I don't see any good reason to remove the section completely, though it could do with additional sources.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I first doubted a WP:FRINGE violation, but later spotted that the new section on religious typification is a WP:POVPUSH and WP:COATRACK issue, with undue weight(WP:UNDUE) given to sociological aspects of the religion which is an otherwise complete article.(Article size is 114KB exceeding the limit of 100KB). I found that the new section is essentially a tautology of statements found in the criticism, organization and source of doctrine sections. I also noted that the labels (academical words) given to describe the religion is a violation of WP:LABEL and WP:NOTACADEMIA policy, and possibly a (WP:ATTACK) to the religion. For all these reasons my suggestion is the removal of the new section.--Logical Thinker:talk 14:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it should be kept. I have yet to see a true argument against it. It isn't a fringe idea. James A. Beckford is not a fringe writer. The source in question is called a standard work on the subject. I don't think that the very short section qualifies for WP:UNDUE. Also would you PLEASE stop using WP:COATRACK as policy. It is an essay. --Guerillero | My Talk 16:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Your reasoning is extremely illogical, Atleast you should have noted the WP:LABEL, which strongly discourages usage of terms such as extremists, cult etc. No other religious article seem to have a section called "religious typification" as far as I know. I agree completely with User:ResidentAnthropologist who had pointed out serious misuse of WP:RS to push a POV. Academical terms are true in a sociological perspective but it is different in the case of a common reader.--Logical Thinker:talk 17:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ The Watchtower. Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society: 587, 590. 1 October 1967. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)
  2. ^ The Watchtower. Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society: 668. 1 November 1961. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)
  3. ^ Worship the Only True God, Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society, 2002, pages 26,27, "The Scriptures warn against isolating ourselves. We should not think that we can figure out everything by independent research ... Similarly today, no one arrives at a correct understanding of Jehovah's purposes on his own. We all need the aid that Jehovah lovingly provides through his visible organization."
  4. ^ "Earnestly seek Jehovah's blessing", The Watchtower, September 15, 2010, "We cannot hope to acquire a good relationship with Jehovah if we ignore those whom Jesus has appointed to care for his belongings. Without the assistance of “the faithful and discreet slave,” we would neither understand the full import of what we read in God’s Word nor know how to apply it."
  5. ^ Franz, Raymond (2007). In Search of Christian Freedom. Commentary Press. pp. 449–464. ISBN 0914675168.
  6. ^ Holden, Andrew (2002). Jehovah's Witnesses: Portrait of a Contemporary Religious Movement. Routledge. p. 32. ISBN 0415266092. The structure of the movement and the intense loyalty demanded of each individual at every level demonstrates the characteristics of totalitarianism.
  7. ^ For examples of what Franz (p.449) says is a concept "stressed with mesmerizing frequency", see the following: "Following Faithful Shepherds with Life in View", The Watchtower, October 1, 1967, page 591, "Make haste to identify the visible theocratic organization of God that represents his king, Jesus Christ. It is essential for life. Doing so, be complete in accepting its every aspect."; The Watchtower, September 1, 2006, pg 15, "Have we formed a loyal attachment to the organization that Jehovah is using today?"; "Your Reminders Are What I Am Fond Of", The Watchtower, June 15, 2006, pg 26, "We too should remain faithful to Jehovah and to his organization regardless of injustices we suffer and regardless of what others do."; "Are You Prepared for Survival?", The Watchtower, May 15, 2006, pg 22, "Just as Noah and his God-fearing family were preserved in the ark, survival of individuals today depends on their faith and their loyal association with the earthly part of Jehovah’s universal organization."; Worship The Only True God (Watch Tower Society, 2002), pg 134, "Jehovah is guiding us today by means of his visible organization under Christ. Our attitude toward this arrangement demonstrates how we feel about the issue of sovereignty ... By being loyal to Jehovah’s organization, we show that Jehovah is our God and that we are united in worship of him."
  8. ^ You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth, Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, 1989, page 255, "It is simply not true that all religions lead to the same goal. (Matthew 7:21-23; 24:21) You must be part of Jehovah's organization, doing God's will, in order to receive his blessing of everlasting life."
  9. ^ "You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth—But How?", The Watchtower, February 15, 1983, page 12, "Jehovah is using only one organisation today to accomplish his will. To receive everlasting life in the earthly Paradise we must identify that organisation and serve God as part of it."
  10. ^ "Serving Jehovah Loyally", The Watchtower, November 15, 1992, page 21, "I determined to stay by the faithful organisation. How else can one get Jehovah's favour and blessing?" There is nowhere else to go for divine favour and life eternal."
  11. ^ "Greater Blessings Through the New Covenant", The Watchtower, February 1, 1998, page 17, "Those of spiritual Israel still remaining on earth make up 'the faithful and discreet slave.' ... Only in association with them can acceptable sacred service be rendered to God."
  12. ^ "Be Aglow With the Spirit", The Watchtower, October 15, 2009, "Those with an earthly hope should therefore recognise Christ as their head and be submissive to the Faithful and Discreet Slave and its Governing Body and to the men appointed as overseers in the congregation."
  13. ^ "Move Ahead with Jehovah's Organisation", The Watchtower, June 1, 1967, page 337, "What, can we say, is the basic principle underlying the movement of Jehovah's living organisation? It can be expressed in one word: OBEDIENCE. Loving obedience from the heart is all. This is the basic formula upon which the organisation rests and operates." (Emphasis in original.)
  14. ^ Jehovah's Witnesses - Proclaimers of God's Kingdom. 1992. p. 284 quote = He sold his prospering haberdashery business, gradually reduced other business interests, and then used all his earthly possessions to help people in a spiritual way. (Compare Matthew 6:19-21.) It was not something that he did for merely a few years. Right down till his death, he used all his resources—his mental ability, his physical health, his material possessions—to teach others the great message of Messiah’s Kingdom. {{cite book}}: Missing pipe in: |page= (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jehovah%27s_Witnesses/Archive_56&oldid=1136839560"